Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

A.1 Road (Roundabouts)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents took place on roundabouts on the A.1 in 1962, 1963, 1964; and what improvements he intends to make.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): 118, 123 and 149 personal injury accidents. Of the 47 roundabouts existing in 1962, three have since been eliminated. The Durham Motorway will bypass eight more. Schemes for the elimination or improvement of another 11 are in progress or due to start within the next five years. Further schemes as necessary will be included in future extensions of my roads programme.

Mr. Kitson: In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that a great many of these accidents happen when visibility is bad and there is fog? Is it not worth while considering painting on the road warning of the fact that there is a roundabout ahead? Might not this cut down the number of accidents? In addition, will the Minister consider reducing the use of kerbstones at roundabouts which are such hard things to hit?

Mr. Fraser: I shall be happy to take into account and to consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Are not the cuts announced yesterday an ideal opportunity for reviewing the use of roundabouts, which are wasteful of land and were abandoned in America many years ago?

Mr. Fraser: In many cases the alternative to a roundabout is grade separation, which, I believe, costs five times as much as a roundabout.

Carlisle Bypass

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the present heavy volume of traffic passing through the City of Carlisle, and the need for the bypass road, if he will now bring forward the operational date for the starting of the Carlisle Bypass.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): We agree that a bypass is urgently needed. Our proposals for the route have been published and objections are now being considered. When the route is fixed we shall complete the remaining statutory procedures, including land acquisition, as quickly as possible. Until they are further advanced it is not possible to say when construction can start.

Mr. Lewis: While appreciating the difficulties of my hon. Friend, may I ask him to do all in his power to speed up the provision of this bypass, which is desperately needed for the northbound and southbound traffic?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, we appreciate the urgent need. The processes required, especially the acquisition of land, are going forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Powell: Is this one of the schemes which will fall victim to the £100 million worth of cuts in the road programme which was indicated yesterday? Is it the Minister's intention to make a statement about his personal position in view of his repeated assurances that the road programme would not be cut and the fact that his colleagues have now thrown him over?

Mr. Swingler: I do not know to what the right hon Gentleman is referring. Evidently he did not hear yesterday's statement very clearly. There was no reference to any £100 million cut in the road programme. Nevertheless, we are considering the revision of the programme in the light of the Chancellor's statement. We cannot say what its effect might be on any particular project.

Computer-controlled Traffic Signals

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made towards carrying out the large-scale experiment in traffic control by means of computer-controlled traffic signals.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The planning stage of the experiment in West London has been substantially completed and tenders have been invited for the main items of equipment. In addition, proposals for conventional traffic measures necessary if the maximum benefit is to be obtained have been put to the Greater London Council as traffic authority. Preliminary planning work began recently on the complementary experiment in the centre of Glasgow.

Mr. Mackenzie: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that computer control would keep the traffic moving smoothly? Will he, therefore, consider this as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. That is the object of the experiment that we are carrying out.

Mr. Webster: Without knowing whether the urban traffic in Ross and Cromarty is worthy of a computer, may I ask the Minister to tell me what advice he has received on this subject from the Minister of Technology?

Mr. Fraser: I am not sure that I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I are in the closest touch on this and other matters concerned with the advance of technology in transport in this country.

Motorways and All-Purpose Roads

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Minister of Transport what are the criteria used to decide whether an urban motorway or an all-purpose road should be built.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The most important considerations are the function of the road as part of the highway network, the nature and volume of the traffic it will carry, and the relative costs and benefits.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the Minister agree that it is far more costly to build all-purpose roads and then convert them into motorways? Does not he agree that it is better to build motorways in the first place?

Mr. Fraser: There are conditions in which it is out of the question to build a motorway, and in which the needs of the traffic in the area are better served by building all-purpose roads. But there are other conditions in which the opposite conclusion would be reached by a consideration of the problems involved.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Can the Minister say how many urban motorways he is planning to build in Ross and Cromarty?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but in any case the answer is "None", because I am not responsible for roads in Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that these questions and answers are fully reported in the John o'Groats Journal?

Ports (Road Access)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration has been given to providing motorway links between the main ports and the present basic motorway network; and what proposals he has made.

Mr. Tom Fraser: When the first 1,000 miles of motorway are completed, road access to almost all major ports will be greatly improved. Whether the connection with the main motorway network should itself be a motorway or an all-purpose road has to be decided in the light of local conditions. Possible further improvements will be included in my studies of the longer-term development of inter-urban routes.

Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that it is gratifying to know that he regards this problem as one of such urgency? Will he conult his colleagues at the Board of Trade in view of the fact that a lack of linkage between the main productive areas and the ports is in many cases harmful to the export trade?

Mr. Fraser: This is one of the aspects of road development to which I am giving


the closest possible consideration. I think it essential that access to the ports should be speeded up.

Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to carry out the promise given yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that urgent action was to be taken to improve access to the ports?

Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend asks what action I am taking in furtherance of a statement made only yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only say that in considering any adjustment of the road programme over the past months I have been giving the utmost attention to bringing forward, if possible, those roadworks which are essential for improving access to the ports.

Mr. Powell: Is it not evident from the Minister's reply that he was taken completely by surprise by what the Chancellor said yesterday, and that he has no idea what is meant by the reference to access to the ports?

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman himself does not believe the accusation that he has just made. I was not taken by surprise. My right hon. Friend in his statement yesterday picked up capital projects in the ports, including access to the ports, as being projects which would be given preferential treatment in the allocation of resources in the six months' period to which he said his statement applied.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise what a surprise the right hon. Gentleman had yesterday?

Mr. Powell: Do we understand that there are certain projects relating to the access to ports to which the six months' period of delay is not to apply, and when will the Minister be able to say what these projects are?

Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend in his statement yesterday did not say that there would be an absolute ban on starts on all road projects. He indicated that there would have to be a reduction in starts if we were to make the best use of our resources in the period immediately ahead, and he went on to call attention to the priority that would be given to ports and to the access to ports. I would have thought that that was a

statement of policy which would have been welcomed on both sides of the House.

Captain Litchfield: Would not the Minister be well advised to give all possible incentives to get long-distance traffic to the ports off the roads and on to the railways? Could not there be stricter control in this regard so far as the nationalised industries are concerned?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I have been giving a lot of attention to this. I have had consultations with the Railways Board, which is engaged in improving the services which it is able to give to manufacturers in this country so that we might use the railways a little more to get goods quickly to the ports.

Motorways

Mr. Hooson: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to have completed the study of future motorway requirements.

Mr. Tom Fraser: During next year.

Mr. Hooson: In view of the importance of a network of motorways in this country to the economy of the country and to its economic recovery, is the Minister satisfied that the surveys so far undertaken are adequate for our development? In particular, can he say whether it is intended to cut down the development of motorways, in view of the Chancellor's statement yesterday?

Mr. Fraser: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday, it will be necessary for me to review those projects which would have started within the next six months, but I do not expect that my right hon. Friend's statement will affect the prospect of having 1,000 miles of motorway completed by the early 1970s, and it will not deter me from going ahead with the study which I am making at the moment of future motorway requirements.

Mr. Powell: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up a difficulty which has been caused by the statement which he made just now? He referred just now to projects which were due to be started in the next six months, and said that they would have to be reviewed. His right hon. Friend's statement yesterday referred to contracts which had not yet been


signed and said that, in the case of those contracts—that is, of course, all future projects under the five years' programme—the starting dates will be postponed for six months. Can we have some reconciliation of these statements?

Mr. Fraser: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's confusion today after what happened to him yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The right hon. Gentleman has quoted what my right hon. Friend said about postponing starts of capital projects, not only for roads but for other projects over the next six months. All I have said this afternoon is that I do not expect that this will make it impossible to complete a thousand miles of motorway by the early 1970s. That is the position.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has my right hon. Friend anything further which he could tell the House about the Manchester-Liverpool motorway and that for the so-called "missing link" between the M.1 and the M.6?

Mr. Fraser: I have said that I expect the Midlands link to be completed by 1970–71. In the light of what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, I cannot repeat with any assurance that it will be completed by then, but I hope that it will not be long delayed beyond 1970–71. I wish that the House would recognise, however, that the programme on which I am now working is a programme which my predecessor based upon a 4 per cent. growth in the economy. I inherited the programme, but I did not inherit a 4 per cent. growth in the economy.

Mr. Powell: May I ask the Minister to make this clear, because it is a point of vital importance? It relates to the words in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday:
… the starting dates will be postponed for six months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 228.]
Does this mean that, during the next six months, starting dates will be postponed or does it mean that, in the case of projects for which contracts have not yet been signed, there will be a six months' postponement of the starting dates?

Mr. Fraser: I do not recognise the difference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I

do not. We are in a period of great economic stress. We have been advised many times by hon. and right hon. Gentlement opposite to make a cut in public spending. We have undertaken—the Chancellor made his statement to this effect yesterday—to do a holding operation on some projects which would have gone ahead in the next six months. Let us see how we get on and let us all do—[Interruption.]—I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would have wanted to see our economy grow and that they would have wanted to see it so strengthened that we could carry through all the essential public works which we have lying ahead of us. I want to see them carried through with the minimum of delay.

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated annual rate of completion of the motorways at present proposed; and what is the rate necessary for them to be completed by the early 1970s.

Mr. Swingler: Work in hand should result in the completion of about 210 miles in this and the next two years. To complete the 1,000 miles by the early 1970s would require an average rate of 70 to 80 miles a year.

Mr. Thorpe: Does not the hon. Gentleman's reply indicate that we are falling behind many of our Continental neighbours in the construction of motorways? Would he accept that the absence of fast communications between centres of production and ports of exit is one of the great obstacles to the export drive in this country? Does he not think that there is a case for reviewing the priorities, in view of the urgent need to step up exports? Finally, what questions and discussions with the First Secretary of State have there been in order that the road communications in this country can help exports?

Mr. Swingler: It may well be that, owing to a considerable amount of negligence in the past, we have fallen well behind other European countries. We are faced with a very difficult situation in order to try to make our way forward. These are regarded as essential projects for communications. We are getting along with them as speedily as we can, according to the economic resources of


the country. We are in constant discussion with our colleagues in the Government about how to improve them.

Mr. Powell: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate broadly the value of the motorway projects which will be affected by the Chancellor's statement of yesterday, as now interpreted by his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Swingler: We are engaged, as I told the right hon. Gentleman before, in reviewing the programme at the moment in the light of the criteria stated by the Chancellor yesterday, and, in particular, the points made by the Chancellor about improving communications to the docks and everything connected with the export drive. Announcements will be made shortly about the effects on particular projects.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that every hon. Member of the Opposition—whether the Conservative Opposition or the Liberal Opposition—is wholeheartedly in favour of reducing public expenditure, on the terms that nothing in which he is interested himself is reduced at all?

Mr. Swingler: I realise that very well.

Classified Roads (Grant System)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for modifying the grant system for classified roads, in view of the extra demands being made on such roads through continually increasing traffic.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I will shortly be putting proposals to the local authorities associations as part of the general review of local government finance.

Mr. Hooson: In putting forward proposals to the local authorities, will the Minister bear in mind that it is because of the absence of motorways and the closure of many railways that there is an increasing amount of traffic on A and B roads and that this particularly affects constituencies and areas like mine? Has he any proposals to increase the grants available to local authorities to improve the standards of these roads, which bear such a heavy amount of traffic?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the general review

of local government finance. Discussions have already started with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and with the local authority associations. In the course of these discussions I shall be putting forward some proposals about further road grants, but, obviously, it is impossible for me to say, at present, what these will be.

Mr. Webster: Without worrying the Minister too much about ways and means, may I ask whether he is aware that, on 3rd and 10th March, he said that the road programme would be maintained in real terms? In view of what has now happened and the six months' postponement, which is probably worth about a £75 million loss to the road programme, will he now reconsider his position and his resignation?

West Country

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make provision for an increase greater than the national average in the amount of funds to be made available for road development in the West Country.

Mr. Swingler: Not unless the studies of the longer term needs of the country as a whole show this to be justified.

Mr. Thorpe: But the hon. Gentleman has referred to the needs of the country as a whole. Is he not aware of the plans of the First Secretary to stimulate the growth of the neglected regions of this country, which is rather different from that Answer? Would he not agree that the main obstacle to attracting industrial investment and extending the tourist trade in the West Country is our appallingly bad road communications? Will he accept that those in the West Country will not be satisfied if all that this Government do is catch up with the backlog of the Tory Administration which preceded them?

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate the needs and difficulties of the West Country, which we hear about weekend after weekend in the holiday season. We have in hand at the moment £12 million-worth of trunk road schemes in the West Country and are making grants of £5 million on classified roads. We have just published a line for the extension of the M.5 into


the West Country. I think that this shows a fairly good record of progress at the moment.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in view of what has been said this afternoon, there is apparently a complete lack of co-ordination between his Ministry and the Chancellor, and that the figures which are being given are quite worthless? When can the House expect a White Paper or some such document telling us what is to be done, with the leave of the Government, before the Recess?

Mr. Swingler: I find it extraordinary that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not acquainted with the facts. The facts which I have just stated are about money which is actually being spent now, and construction work which is going on in one part of the country. We are in constant consultation with other Departments in the Government about how to improve these communications.

Mr. Bessell: asked the Minister of Transport in view of the importance of tourism to the economy of the West Country, if he will initiate a study of the economic effect of road conditions on the tourist industry, with a view to improving the system of roads in the West Country.

Mr. Swingler: The effects of road conditions on the tourist industry will be taken into account by the Economic Planning Council for the South West when formulating proposals for future economic development in the region.

Mr. Bessell: Will the hon. Gentleman use his best offices to urge his right hon. Friend the First Secretary to speed up the review so that we can get the roads which are so necessary for the general development of the South-West, particularly bearing in mind the undertakings given by the Government to develop this area as a matter of priority?

Mr. Swingler: I am well aware of the importance of the area and of tourism especially, which I myself have indulged in in the South-West. We have now—which we had not before—a highly intelligent planning council in the South-West, and I am sure that it is coming to grips with the priorities. We shall be

governed by its advice and the scale of priorities that it draws up.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: In considering the South-West, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, apart from the tourist trade, there is very substantial long-distance carriage covering both the china clay and the horticulture industries? Therefore, we have an industrial user of the roads, not merely a tourism user.

Vehicle Breakdowns

Mr. Bowen: asked the Minister of Transport what is the statistical average of vehicle breakdowns expressed in vehicle-miles; to what extent this factor is considered in designing urban and rural motorways and all-purpose roads, respectively; and what account is taken of it in deciding whether an emergency hard shoulder is to be included.

Mr. Swingler: I apologise for the length of this Answer.
The rate of vehicle breakdown is not capable of precise calculation but is within the range of one for every 10,000 to 20,000 vehicle miles. This is taken into account in the design of motorways. Continuous hard shoulders are provided on all rural motorways. On urban motorways, where traffic speeds are lower hard shoulders will be provided where this is physically possible and not disproportionately costly.
Breakdowns are a less significant factor in the design of all-purpose roads, where drivers have in any case to allow for stationary vehicles, turning vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. On the more important all-purpose roads it is the policy to provide lay-bys at frequent intervals.

Mr. Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that with three-lane motorways there is the great advantage of being able to use the central reservation as an additional draw-in for vehicles in an emergency?

Mr. Swingler: The question of the use of the central reservation and its rôle is a matter which is under constant discussion. We are persistently being pressed to erect anti-dazzle and anti-crash screens on the central reservation. We give high priority to the carrying out


of experiments into this important subject.

Mr. Bowen: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the suggestion put to him by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is fraught with danger, and should not the Ministry reconsider its whole attitude towards the three-lane motorways?

Mr. Swingler: That is another question. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in that it is far more important for us to experiment to find the right answer to the question of the use of the central reservation as a means of preventing accidents and safeguarding motorists against dazzle.

Parking Facilities

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to compile statistics and data on the provision or otherwise of, or need for, parking facilities by local authorities in view of the wide difference in parking policy between authorities.

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. Parking policy must fit local needs, which vary from town to town. In a planning bulletin issued last March, we and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave local authorities advice on all aspects of parking and urged them to adopt positive and comprehensive policies.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on the outskirts of Greater London different local authorities adopt very different pricing policies in relation to the parking facilities which they provide and that these are in no way co-ordinated with the parking facilities which are provided by either London Transport or the British Railways Board? What steps is the Ministry taking to see that the policies of all the various authorities which provide parking on the peripheries of our major cities, particularly Greater London, are properly co-ordinated?

Mr. Swingler: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that we want a co-ordination of policy on this matter, co-ordination which we have sadly lacked in the past. We are endeavouring to get this co-ordination, particularly among the nationalised boards. However, traffic

conditions vary considerably from town to town and, as I said to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) the other night, the parking policy of one authority—such as the use of disc parking—may not be suitable for others. We must, therefore, depend on the local highway authorities to adopt the policy which is best suited to their local needs.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the hon. Gentle-aware of the increasing irritation in the London area because of the parking of heavy lorries in residential roads and streets? Is it not time that the Ministry took a lead in attempting to solve this problem?

Mr. Swingler: The local highway authorities and local police have a considerable degree of responsibility here. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to enforcement, then that is the responsibility of all concerned. If it is an offence—and it often probably is—for heavy lorries to be parked in residential streets in the way described, that is a matter for police action.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Transport if he will initiate research into the effect on property values in town shopping and business areas of the absence of adequate parking facilities.

Mr. Swingler: My Department is already sponsoring a research group whose work includes the inter-relationship between transport facilities and urban development. My right hon. Friend does no think he should give special priority to this particular aspect of the problem.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in many suburban areas around Greater London parking facilities which were originally provided for the benefit of people using the shops are being used by commuters who leave their cars there the whole day while they are in London and thereby prevent people who come in by car using the shopping areas? Does this not indicate that the imperative need is co-ordination between British Railways and the local authorities in outer London?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It emphasises the imperative need for a policy of co-ordination, which we have lacked for so many years. We are trying to come to


grips with the problem of having parking facilities available at the rail terminals.

Mr. Speaker: Lord Dalkeith.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I called Lord Dalkeith.

The Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question and other Questions today mark an historic occasion, namely, the sudden and belated transition of the Liberal Party from the horse and carriage age to the motor car age?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister's responsibility extends to that degree of historical research.

Mr. Bowen: asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the extent to which town shopping centres with adequate parking facilities attract shoppers from towns without such facilities.

Mr. Swingler: In the joint planning bulletin "Parking in Town Centres" issued last March, we and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government advised all local authorities that towns without an adequate policy for both on-street and off-street parking are likely to lose trade to those that have.

Mr. Bowen: Is it not extremely important to stress not only the convenience aspect of the matter but also the basic commercial value of providing adequate parking facilities in urban areas?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. It is extremely important that all local highway authorities should consider this, and a bulletin was issued as a matter of urgency in the light of the continued build-up of ownership of vehicles. This is something which will be essential in the co-ordination of transport in the future.

Mr. Powell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time is approaching when it would be wise to have a full-scale and thorough investigation into the economics of parking from every point of view—charging, land use, and so on—and that this is a task which might usefully be entrusted to an independent body?

Mr. Swingler: It would have been wise to have had this many years ago. With the advantage of the advice of his Transport Advisory Council, my right hon. Friend is considering this matter as one of urgency. That is why we have issued a bulletin to local authorities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How does the Minister explain the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who we thought was a 100 per cent. capitalist, is now demanding public initiative?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transport has no responsibility for giving such explanations.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party suggested that they were poised and ready to swing many policies into action? It is no excuse for him to say that the Conservative Party did nothing for 13 years. What have hon. Gentlemen opposite been doing for 13 years?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Swingler: We have swung policies into action. That is why my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a bulletin on car parking facilities last March to local highway authorities. It indicates to them the policies that we wish to see adopted.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that parking, whether by discs or by meters, seems to be rather noisy, and that we have had the Answers to 20 Questions only by 17 minutes past three o'clock.

Roads (Night Work)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the continually increasing traffic, he will encourage the carrying out of more road work at night, and so help to relieve daytime congestion.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I am aware of the need to minimise traffic congestion caused by road works. But, in addition to other objections, more general night work would add substantially to their cost.

Mr. Steel: While the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks are undoubtedly true, may I ask him to bear in mind that the obvious extra costs of night work might be offset by reducing the hidden costs of increased congestion during the day?

Mr. Fraser: The cost is quite an important factor, but there are other objections. There is the constant objection to night work of this kind made by residents, who complain about the noise occasioned by the work that is going on and by the traffic which is engaged for the purpose of that work.

Mr. Ford: Has the Minister any plans for carrying out road works, at night if necessary, to accommodate the Liberal juggernaut which only today appears to be on the move?

Parking (Disc Schemes)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Transport what local authorities have now approached him regarding parking schemes based on the use of discs.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Only Cheltenham.

Mr. Steel: Has the Minister carried out a study of the use of disc schemes in Continental cities? Is any comparative work going on between the use of discs and parking meters, in relation to the financial outlay and efficiency in the provision of parking space?

Mr. Fraser: We are well aware of what is going on in Continental cities and, over the years, the Government have advised local authorities of these developments. The former Government sent out a memorandum in 1961 and a circular in 1962. In March of this year the present Government sent out a bulletin called "Parking in Town Centres" to all local authorities. In that bulletin we suggested the various systems which might be employed by them to deal with this problem.

Mr. Bellenger: Would my right hon. Friend welcome additional schemes from local authorities which desire to try out other methods of parking, or is he inevitably wedded to the idea of parking meters?

Mr. Fraser: In the bulletin which we sent out a few months ago we indicated that disc parking was one system which might be considered by local authorities. If local authorities put forward suggestions, as Cheltenham did, we, of course, shall be glad to consider them. I assure my right hon. Friend that we do not impose our wishes or possible prejudices on local authorities in this matter.

Captain Litchfield: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at his records again to see whether the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has not put forward proposals of this kind? Would he accept two points: first, that the introduction of parking meters in residential districts can create real hardship for residents and, secondly, that the interests of residents from the parking point of view should take priority in any scheme which is in the interests of others?

Mr. Fraser: I will certainly look at my records again to see whether I have misinformed the House. I have given the House the information which is now available, that only Cheltenham has proposed such a scheme. However, on the wider question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I must leave some work to the local traffic authorities and the matters to which he has called attention are matters within the responsibility of those authorities.

Popham-Winchester Bypass

Mr. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Transport what he estimates would be the cost of providing dual carriageways on the existing main road between Popham and the Winchester Bypass.

Mr. Tom Fraser: About £650,000.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that parts of this road are now narrower than in Roman days, when the road was first put down? Will he consider with his Department the possibility of extending the M.3 from Popham to the Winchester Bypass, for I fear that if he does not do so now he will have to do so ultimately at greater expenditure of money than is otherwise called for?

Mr. Fraser: I think that the part of the road which the hon. Gentleman has asked me to extend as a motorway—that is, south of Popham to the Winchester Bypass—is the most lightly loaded part of the whole of the London-Southampton road. I should have thought that the proposition which has just been made for the expenditure of resources on it is one which I could not reasonably pursue.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does the Minister realise, in the context of the statement made by the Chancellor of the


Exchequer yesterday, that this road, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) refers, is an essential link with the Port of Southampton and is vitally necessary for exports through that port?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I did not say that we would not spend any money on this road. Indeed, we shall spend money on it.

Land (Compulsory Acquisition)

Mr. Bessell: asked the Minister of Transport what steps in the process of land acquisition for motorways and all-purpose roads can be carried out simultaneously; and if he will make such a procedure standard practice in order to eliminate unnecessary delays.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of land for motorways and trunk roads are, so far as practicable, taken concurrently with the proceedings for making the schemes and orders which settle the lines on which those roads are to be built and the consequential alterations of the existing roads.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the amount of time it takes to acquire land for motorway and all-purpose road construction? Will he consider introducing the necessary legislation to speed up this process?

Mr. Fraser: It might be desirable to speed up the process. This matter is constantly under review and it is only proper that I should inform the House that as the road programme has been planned for some years—in other words, this is not something that has happened only recently—Governments have always given themselves time to carry through all the procedures, statutory and administrative, by the time it is anticipated that it will be possible to find the necessary resources to put the project in hand. That is the position at present, and it would be foolish of me to pretend that I could speed up the road programme merely by speeding up these processes.

Sir C. Osborne: Instead of spending almost unlimited money on new roads in one way or the other at a time of financial crisis, would not the right hon. Gentleman be better employed in trying

to get more traffic back on the railways, which are only half-used? At a time when we are really up against it financially, would it not be wise to use the railways more fully instead of spending money in this direction?

Mr. Fraser: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I shall be serving the interests of the country well if I can get some traffic off the roads and on to the railways.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I recently sent him a letter from a constituent—I have had another today—saying that the railways are losing so many of his goods that he is having to send them by road? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to improve the efficiency of the railways in carrying goods?

Mr. Speaker: The Question is concerned with land acquisition.

Motorways (Emergency Telephones)

Mr. Boston: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now install telephones along the M.20.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Yes, Sir. Following a review of policy I have decided to install emergency telephones on all trunk road motorways, including the Maidstone Bypass.

Mr. Boston: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this decision about the M.20 will be warmly appreciated? Will he bear in mind when siting the telephones that the nearby M.2 has one telephone per mile on either side?

Mr. Fraser: It is my intention to install telephones at this distance, one telephone per mile, on all trunk road motorways.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motor Insurance (Claims)

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider introducing legislation to lay down a code of conduct by motor insurance companies in meeting claims.

Mr. Swingler: Claims on motor insurers arise under insurance policies which are contracts enforceable at law.


We see no need for further legislation on this matter.

Mr. Newens: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread discontent among the clients of many insurance companies and those involved in accidents with the clients of many insurance companies at the frustration and delay which they encounter in getting their claims settled? Is there no appropriate action that my hon. Friend can advocate in these circumstances?

Mr. Swingler: If my hon. Friend is concerned about any particular case, I shall be glad to take it up with the motor insurance companies. I am aware that there is frustration, but it is not a matter which we think can be dealt with by legislation.

Mr. Mapp: Is my hon. Friend aware that the position concerning highway liability generally is unsatisfactory? Can he say, in the wider context, whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has any further comment to make to the House about an inquiry, promised some weeks ago, over the wider field?

Mr. Swingler: I am not quite sure to what my hon. Friend is referring. We are, however, at present discussing with the Motor Insurers' Bureau the possibility of changing the law to overcome certain difficulties and anomalies which are well known.

Mr. Tiley: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend that British insurance companies have a reputation throughout the world for the manner in which they carry out business, and that this is why we do the most insurance business in the world?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is the Minister's responsibility to tell his hon. Friend that.

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the conditions on which motor insurance companies are prepared to allow a no-claim bonus on insurance premiums, with a view to legislation on the subject.

Mr. Swingler: We see no need for the Government to intervene in this matter. Policy conditions, including no-claim bonuses, are a matter of contract, and

there is no reason to suppose that legislation to control the present insurance market in this respect is either necessary or desirable.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that some motor insurance companies do not allow a no-claims bonus to their clients who are involved in an accident in which they are completely innocent? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this state of affairs? Does not he consider that some action is required to satisfy the needs of the public?

Mr. Swingler: It may be that some action is required by the citizens themselves, but this is a matter of contract between the motorist and the insurance company, and it is not a matter than can be dealt with by legislation.

Rural Bus Services

Mr. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he will now take to help the maintenance and expansion of rural bus services.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The reports of the local inquiries and experiments which were undertaken in selected areas of England and Wales will be published early next week.
As I have previously announced, I intend to discuss the results with the local authorities' and bus operators' Associations.
The inquiries and experiments have shown a number of interesting results and possibilities, which will be worth exploring further. They point to the conclusion, however, that the financial problems of providing bus services in rural areas cannot be dealt with in isolation from the general problems arising throughout the country of maintaining efficient public transport services.

Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is going to publish the reports. Three months ago, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), he said that he would do so very soon. In reviewing this matter, will he give very careful consideration to the possibility of using school buses which often go with vacant seats through rural areas which sadly lack transport for the carrying of fare-paying passengers?

Mr. Fraser: This is one of the matters dealt with in the reports to which I shall have to give consideration, particularly in consultation with the local authorities.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who represent rural areas do not very much like the sound of his answer? Unless he is very careful, he will run into the same danger of the delay in dealing with rural transport which we experienced for 13 years on the part of the Conservative Party. Is he aware that if there are financial difficulties, they must be faced up to, especially in the overspill areas where there is a substantial traffic increase potential?

Mr. Fraser: I think that my hon. Friend would, however, wish us to give proper consideration to the reports made following these local inquiries and experiments. I should have thought, too, that hon. Members in all parts of the House would want to read what is contained in those reports before they start jumping to conclusions about what we should do in implementation or otherwise of any recommendations contained therein.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister in touch with the Postmaster-General who, as he may have heard, is engaged in experiments and research into the possibility of co-ordinating rural services with postal services in certain areas where people are so scattered that it would be totally uneconomic to run an actual bus service?

Mr. Fraser: I am in touch with a great many of my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities for services in the rural areas, with a view to seeing if we can co-ordinate services to make them more economic, and in some cases to run them more efficiently.

Goods Vehicles (London Area)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will take steps generally to restrict the hours during which road goods vehicles shall be allowed within an eight mile radius of Charing Cross;
(2) if he will introduce legislation generally to prohibit the loading and unloading of goods vehicles in the streets of London during the daytime.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport what restrictions he has decided to impose on the entry of goods vehicles and private cars into Central London.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I think that any such far-reaching measures can be considered only in the light of the study of restraint of traffic generally which I announced on 14th April.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the inner part of south-east London traffic congestion caused by the presence of heavy goods vehicles is notoriously bad and that some streets are almost completely congested by parked heavy lorries, especially during rush hours, when the unloading of heavy goody vehicles is a notorious practice?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir, but I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that he is raising a matter with me which is the responsibility of the Greater London Council. I think he knows that there are at present many schemes which restrict the use of roads by commercial vehicles during certain hours and restrict stopping for loading and unloading in many other streets during given hours. The speech I made on 14th April, to which I have referred, mentioned a further study which we are making of possibilities for further restraint of traffic in cities. I am in the closest consultation with the Greater London Council. I am hoping very much to be able to say something positive on this matter before the end of the year.

Mr. Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the day has already come when we must decide that certain categories of road traffic have got to be kept out of central London altogether, at least during certain hours of the day? This is an inevitable decision which we must come to, particularly in regard to the use of private cars coming into central London, which must be severely restricted.

Mr. Fraser: It is because I believe that restriction will be needed that I have been making speeches in recent months and that the study I have mentioned is under way.

Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great burden we


put on people receiving goods in this way if they have to do so out of ordinary hours? Is he aware that it will make a great increase in the cost of running these businesses?

Mr. Fraser: What I do know is that if one looks round many streets in London at present one finds pubs at nearly every street corner and at 9 o'clock in the morning lorries are unloading at those pubs, hindering the traffic not only of private cars, but of public service vehicles.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the great complexity of the purposes, economic and other, which vehicles of different kinds are serving and therefore the necessity for a most careful study before any restrictions of the kind implied by these questions are imposed?

Mr. Fraser: What I recognise is that we have to make better use of the road space in the centres of cities than we are doing at present. I believe that we shall do that only by working out carefully—I did not say that I would be doing it without care—the restraints that will have to be put upon certain traffic using those roads. I honestly believe that we shall get proper use of these busy streets, particularly in city centres, only by curtailing the use that can be made of them by commercial vehicles, I should have thought that not only commercial vehicles but private cars would have to suffer some restraint on the use they make of city streets—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]—This is what I think and this is the object of the study I am having made at present.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. You did refer to the slow progress with Questions today, Mr. Speaker. Is it not almost entirely due to the waffly answers we are getting from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the epithet "waffly" has any part in a point of order.

Motor Cars (Printed Slogans)

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to ensure that political and other organisations refrain from distributing printed slogans

to be stuck in the rear windows of motor cars, in view of the fact that they obscure vision and act as a distraction to other road users.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have no power to prohibit the distribution of printed slogans. The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1963, already require the driver to have a clear view through the windows of a motor vehicle.

Mr. Atkinson: Would not the Minister agree that a more definite instruction is necessary in view of the present vogue? Would he also agree that now that motor car designers are attempting to get maximum all-round visibility the need for this instruction is becoming increasingly apparent? Would he not agree that when a motorist is involved in an accident it is no consolation for him to learn that the motorist in front is not to blame because he voted Conservative?

Mr. Fraser: As I have said, I have no power to prohibit the distribution of printed slogans. I think it would be a mistake for me to contemplate putting a ban on the insertion of messages in the rear windows of motor cars. I can think of some which fulfil a very useful purpose, such as, "Disabled Driver" or "Running In, Please Pass." Quite a number of these messages are useful and I would not want to ban them.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Would not the Minister agree that the motives which prompted this Question are not road safety but political safety in view of all the excellent signs which have been put on our cars for so long warning everybody of the chaos of Socialist Government?

Mr. Fraser: I am reliably informed that the car which bears the label, "Don't blame me. I voted for Enoch", is not the car of the hon. and gallant Member.

Dipped Headlights

Mr. Boston: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that many motorists fail to dip their headlights when approaching oncoming traffic; and if he will take further steps to see that they do so.

Mr. Swingler: The law already provides penalties for driving without reasonable consideration for other users of the road. We do not consider that there


is need for legislation making failure co dip headlights when meeting another vehicle a specific offence. The Highway Code provides that when meeting other vehicles drivers should dip their headlights and should slow down or stop if they are dazzled.

Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a substantial number of drivers using the motorways fail to dip their headlights and that perhaps some research is needed in this direction? Will he also bear in mind that a substantial minority of motorists, when approaching oncoming vehicles, undip their lights in the split section before the vehicles pass and this makes a great hazard? Will he look into this matter and see whether or not a publicity campaign in association with the motoring organisations is needed?

Mr. Swingler: Yes. We recognise that this is a problem on the motorways. That is why we are giving urgent consideration to anti-dazzle devices.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the hazards of undipped lights would be substantially removed if in future all lights were fitted with yellow bulbs, as is done so widely on the Continent?

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister stop all driving on sidelights, especially in towns and cities?

Mr. Swingler: The matters raised in that supplementary question and in the previous supplementary question are being discussed now with the motor manufacturers in relation to the design of lights. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are so many variations of conditions in towns, according to the standard of lighting which has been established—or which, as is true in some cases, has not been established at all—that it is extremely difficult for us to generalise and lay down regulations on the subject. Nevertheless, we hope to be able to give more guidance shortly.

CYPRUS (TURKISH-CYPRIOT COMMUNITY)

Mr. Sandys: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what action Her Majesty's Government as co-guarantor of the Cyprus Constitution are taking to uphold the constitutional rights of the Turkish-Cypriot community following the rejection of the representations made by the British High Commissioner to Archbishop Makarios.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): The representations made by the British High Commissioner to the President of Cyprus were an expression of our often stated view, as a co-guarantor of the Cyprus Constitution, that the validity of the Treaty embodying that Constitution should be upheld until it is freely renegotiated.
This remains our view, and it is Her Majesty's Government's earnest hope that the Cyprus Government will do nothing to implement the law in question, or take any other action likely to increase tension in the island.

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the flagrantly illegal action of the Cyprus Government gives to Turkey an unquestionable right under the Treaty of Guarantee to intervene in order to restore the Constitution? In view of the very grave consequences which this might have, may I ask the Government to take this matter immediately to the Security Council?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that for the moment we ought to rest on what I have said, and I would further amplify that by saying that we are satisfied that the terms of our representations were clear and correct and were clearly understood by the Government of Cyprus. I do not consider that anything would be added to them by a public debate at this stage. I would consider further action, should it be necessary.

Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious and a very urgent situation? Can he give us an assurance that the Government are in close touch with the Turkish Government and the Greek Government,


who are co-guarantors of the Constitution? Will he think again about the desirability of taking the matter to the Security Council so that the nations of the world may bring pressure to bear on the Cyprus Government not to aggravate this already explosive situation?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. What I said was that we would not take it to the Security Council. However, we have informed the Secretary-General of the position and of the nature of our representations to the Cyprus authorities.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the possible gravity of the situation which may emerge, is it likely that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement before we go into recess, because hon. Members on this side may wish to offer an opinion as to the propriety of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion—in my view, it was a very proper suggestion—for referring this matter to the Security Council?

Mr. Bottomley: I repeat that we are in touch with the United Nations, and if it should be necessary to take any further action I undertake to keep the House informed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While the United Nations has its part in this matter, is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government very clear indeed? Is not the subject of this Question one of many acts taken by the Cyprus Government detrimental to the Turkish community and in defiance of the treaty arrangements upon which the Republic of Cyprus is founded?
May we take it that Her Majesty's Government will regard this very seriously indeed? We on these benches have been very restrained. There have been so many acts of discrimination. Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government are in full consultation with the two allies also responsible in Cyprus and that this matter will not just be shuffled off on to a reference to the United Nations?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. We are in touch with all the authorities concerned. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very serious matter. Indeed, last weekend, when I first heard about it, I instructed immediate representations to

be made to the Cyprus authorities. I am quite sure that it is the concern of both sides of the House that we should not add to the tension in the island. We will do all we can to keep the peace, and that is what the Government are trying to do.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the suggestions made to my right hon. Friend from both sides of the House about referring this matter to the Security Council, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any information that he can give the House about the likelihood of an early meeting of the Security Council? Does he not consider that if there were a likelihood of such an early meeting there are far more urgent and far more dangerous questions than this one to refer to it?

Mr. Bottomley: That is a point of view which is held by many Members of the House. The co-guarantors and the Cyprus Government are in touch with each other about this matter. I think that it is much better to leave it for them to try to settle at this stage rather than to take the matter to the Security Council.

Mr. Hooson: In view of the explosive potential of this situation and our previous experience of the difficulties in Cyprus, would it not be better to refer the matter to the Security Council now rather than to await the risk of an explosion there?

Mr. Bottomley: I have already indicated why I think that that is not the best way to deal with the matter. There are other authorities concerned in this dispute. They, in turn, have apparently decided not to refer it to the Security Council at this time.

RHODESIA (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE, PORTUGAL)

Mr. Thorpe: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether the British Government's approval for the appointment of a Rhodesian diplomatic representative to Portugal was sought by the Rhodesian Government prior to their public announcement of this appointment, and whether the British Government have granted, or will grant such approval.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): The Rhodesian Government's request for approval for such an appointment is the subject of confidential exchanges. The British Government's attitude will be governed by the need to preserve Britain's ultimate responsibility for Rhodesia's external affairs and for its diplomatic representation in foreign countries.

Mr. Thorpe: Can we know, first, what the status of this person will be? Will he merely be a trade and information officer, or will he have diplomatic status and be able to bind Rhodesia, and, therefore, indirectly Britain, in matters of foreign affairs?
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if diplomatic status is given this is a way of giving de facto recognition to the independence and control by Rhodesia over its foreign affairs, which is independence by the back door?
Finally, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that Rhodesia has an ambassador in South Africa in no way creates a precedent? That is a very different situation which has historical and political origins which have no parallel in Portugal.

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. What the hon. Gentleman has said is true. The fact that Rhodesia has a representative in South Africa is no precedent. The Rhodesian Government had a representative in South Africa when South Africa was in the Commonwealth. When South Africa left the Commonwealth, it was thought unnecessary to make any change in the situation. I repeat that it does not create a precedent. On the other point, the discussions about representation are still continuing. As I have already said, the British Government are responsible for Rhodesia's diplomatic representation in foreign countries.

Mr. James Johnson: Has such an appointment ever been made in Washington? If so, when did this take place?

Mr. Bottomley: There is no such diplomatic appointment in Washington, but it is true that the Rhodesian Government have a representative on the staff of the British Ambassador in Washington.

Mr. Wall: As the Rhodesian Government have representatives in both Pretoria

and Washington, will the right hon. Gentleman say why Her Majesty's Government are even considering not accepting an appointment to another capital?

Mr. Bottomley: It is not accurate to say that the British Government are not considering the representations which have been made. It is the status of the accredited representative which is in dispute.

HASTINGS AIRCRAFT (ACCIDENT)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I will, with permission, inform the House of the findings of the board of inquiry into the accident to the Hastings aircraft of the Royal Air Force on 6th July, and of the action which is being taken following the inquiry.
The board has found that the loss of control which caused the aircraft to crash was due to the failure of the two upper attachment bolts of the starboard outer elevator out-rigger. Subsequent tests at Harefield Laboratories and the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, have shown that the failure was one of fatigue.
The Minister of Aviation and the manufacturers have made a thorough investigation of the Hastings control system and have defined certain work which it is considered should be done on all Hastings aircraft before they are released for flying.
It has been decided to return to the manufacturers in this country, or to suitable centres overseas, for reconditioning and modification all elevators, tailplanes, fins and rudders. While the aircraft are grounded, the opportunity is also being taken by the Service to carry out special checks for any other defects, and remedial action will be taken if necessary.
In parallel with this work, and as a precautionary measure, the manufacturers are making a separate study of the general structure of the aircraft to enable them to give an assurance of its safety for the remainder of its life.
I cannot say at this stage exactly how long the necessary remedial work will take, but the first aircraft should be flying again within a few weeks and the whole programme should be complete in about two months.
A detailed study has been made of the effect of the temporary withdrawal of the Hastings on our operational and training capabilities. The main impact is on our training programme which will have to be temporarily curtailed in a number of ways. By means of a reallocation of priorities and increased chartering, additional transport aircraft have been made available for our air forces overseas and this will enable them to meet their operational commitments.
Transport Command is proud of the standards that have enabled its scheduled services to achieve probably the finest airline safety record in the world, and everything possible will be done to maintain these standards.

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the House the information arising out of the board of inquiry. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the circumstances of this tragic accident are being used by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough to add to its knowledge of metal fatigue in aircraft generally? Is there any special checking procedure, particularly for older aircraft, by which signs of fatigue can be detected before they are too far advanced? If so, are these methods being used?
The statement referred to additional transport aircraft being made available. Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific as to what aircraft he has in mind for this purpose? Since it is the intention that the Hastings aircraft should come back into service as soon as possible, can the right hon. Gentleman look further ahead into the future and say when they are likely to be replaced altogether and by what aircraft?

Mr. Healey: I think that the hon. Member will know that the question of fatigue is a problem which is not yet fully understood by our scientists and still less by our engineers, but, of course, we are learning what we can from this tragic experience and we will apply the lessons to tests of all other aircraft.
On the question of the replacement of the Hastings, under the new programme which the House approved some months ago, the C130E will begin to come into operational service towards the end of next year and will be completely in operational

service in 1968, five or six years before the Hastings replacement would have been in service under the previous programme.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to transport aircraft. In view of the fact that this is the second type, first the Valiant and now the Hastings, that have had fatigue tests within a few months, will he give an undertaking that the full knowledge of the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the industry will be applied to check-inspection of all types, whether military or transport?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lubbock: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and ask him two questions? First, how can he give us an assurance that the first aircraft should be flying again in a few weeks when a study of the general structure of the aircraft is being undertaken to enable an assurance to be given of its safety for the remainder of its life? How is the right hon. Gentleman sure that this study will come up with a favourable answer? Secondly, what arrangements for chartering aircraft for Transport Command have been entered into in anticipation of taking the Hastings out of service?

Mr. Healey: The Hastings represents a special fatigue problem because of vibration in the rear assembly when the aircraft is on the ground. This problem is not thought likely to apply to other aircraft, but it will be fully studied and the necessary steps will be taken to deal with the problem before the first Hastings comes back into service.
Steps have been taken to meet the charter problem, but the hon. Member will understand that the number of aircraft which we charter will depend on the operational situation. The bulk of our worldwide transport arrangements are not affected by the withdrawal of the Hastings.

PORTS (INTERIM PLAN)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
The Interim Plan for the Ports, prepared by the National Ports Council in


accordance with Section 1 of the Harbours Act, 1964, is being published this afternoon. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
The principal recommendation is the development—which the Council consider to be urgently necessary—of 14 ports, involving the construction of about 70 new berths and the renovation of about 46 existing berths. These schemes, some of which have already been started, are additional to the proposals for the iron ore ports in South Wales. In total, they would cost about £150 to £155 million. This expenditure will, of course, necessarily be phased over a number of years.
The Government welcome these proposals for much-needed modernisation and expansion of port capacity and, in particular, the proposals for providing new deep water berths. Ports are a vital element in the basic industrial structure of the country; their modernisation is of particular importance in helping to speed the movement of exports. Measures for port development must be co-ordinated nationally, but the regional Economic Planning Councils and the Councils for Scotland and Wales are also being asked to consider the implications of the Report.
It is the responsibility of the port authorities to submit individual schemes to me for detailed consideration, in consultation with the Council. The existence of the interim plan will not rule out consideration of other schemes which port authorities may wish to submit, and all these schemes will be considered in relation to the Government's overall planning for ports.
The Council also recommends improvements in port organisation, the early reform of certain charges made by port authorities and the complete overhaul reform by port authorities of their charges structures in the next five years or so. Certain of these recommendations will fall to be considered in conjunction with the report of the Committee of Inquiry under Lord Devlin. Others may be brought to the attention of the Economic Development Committee for the movement of exports, whose work is just beginning. I agree that reform of port charges will be necessary to ensure better and more efficient use of existing facilities and to encourage development of the ports.
The Council also recommends that, for the purpose of assisting port authorities to undertake proposed development, the Government should make grants up to £25 million to £30 million in the next five years. I am now studying this recommendation in consultation with the Council.
The Government are grateful to Lord Rochdale and his colleagues for their Report, which is a notable step in planing for the ports on a national basis.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this publication is an improvement on the original intended publication of a mere outline of the Council's proposals? It will facilitate study and debate, which will be necessary. Meantime, there is one point which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry under Lord Devlin. Can he tell the House when that is expected?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot without notice say when the Devlin Report will be coming out. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Lord Devlin was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I would prefer that my right hon. Friend should say when the Report is to be expected.

Mr. Heffer: Does the Report reverse the trend of the previous Rochdale Report, which stated that port development should largely be in the South and South-East? May we take it that there is now likely to be further port development in Merseyside, the North-East and other areas apart from those mentioned in the previous Rochdale Report?

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend will find that this Report recommends considerable developments on the Mersey, but, as I said, individual schemes will have to be submitted by the port authorities to me for consideration under the powers given to me by Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1964.

Mr. Ridsdale: How much of this investment is to be put into our East Coast ports, particularly in view of the importance of our trade with Europe? Secondly, how much stop and how much go is implied by the words, "phased over a number of years"?

Mr. Fraser: I should have expected even the hon. Gentleman to want to look at the Report and see whether we can consider these matters against the background of national needs rather than make cheap party localised points.

Mr. Wilkins: As the proposals of the Bristol Port Authority for six new deep water berths on the Portbury site have been in my right hon. Friend's hands for many months now, will he say whether he has considered them and whether they are included in the Report, which we have not yet in our hands?

Mr. Fraser: I am considering them, but I have not completed my consideration. My hon. Friend will find that the proposal for development at Portbury is included in the Report of the Interim Plan.

Mr. Bessell: We on this bench also welcome this Interim Plan. The Minister said that the Economic Planning Councils for Scotland and Wales would be asked to consider the implications of the Report. May we take it that they will be considered also by the Economic Planning Council for the South-West, with particular reference to Plymouth and Falmouth? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to do his best to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to implement the recommendation in the Report as regards grants for future development?

Mr. Fraser: The regional Economic Planning Councils will, of course, consider

the proposals which relate to ports within their regions. I had to mention the Scottish and Welsh Councils in particular because they do not like to be referred to as regional councils.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will this document include reference to the Government's position as regards the South Wales iron ore ports? The Minister will recall that we had a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee in which the Government were not only unable to give us their policy, but produced a contradiction of their position as stated in the White Paper. Can he give us some information about that?

Mr. Fraser: This would not be the time for me to engage in controversy about what was said in the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee or in the White Paper on the iron ore ports. The iron ore ports are not dealt with in the Interim Plan published today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and, in the case of every Question which, under the provisions of paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the Chairman is directed to put forthwith at half-past Nine o'clock, he shall this day put such Question forthwith so soon as the House has resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66; DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1965–66; NAVY EXPENDITURE, ARMY EXPENDITURE, AIR SERVICE EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order, proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the amounts of the Votes in the Civil Estimates, including Revised Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, as follow, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Defence (Central) Estimate, the Defence (Navy) Estimates, the Defence (Army) Estimates, and the Defence (Air) Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Votes and Estimates; and that sanction be given to the application of the sums temporarily authorised in respect of the Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure].

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66

CLASS I

VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

That a sum, not exceeding £3,196,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and two Ministers without Portfolio. [£1,850,000 has been voted on account.]

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS I

VOTE 4. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

That a sum, not exceeding £984,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £215,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come

in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, of the National Economic Development Council, and of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and for certain grants in aid. [£399,000 has been voted on account.]

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS I

That a sum, not exceeding £68,149,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. House of Lords
247,000


2. House of Commons
1,955,000


5. Privy Council Office
38,000


6. Post Office Ministers
7,250


7. Customs and Excise
17,750,000


8. Inland Revenue
46,761,000


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
480,000


10. Civil Service Commission
547,000


11. Royal Commissions, &amp;c.
364,000



£68,149,250

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS II

That a sum, not exceeding £127,576,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Diplomatic Service
20,811,000


2. Foreign Services (including a Supplementary sum of £768,000)
12,870,000


3. British Council
3,862,000


4. Commonwealth Services (including a Supplementary sum of £232,000)
15,805,000


5. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £145,000)
4,822,000


6. Colonial Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000)
7,114,000


7. Ministry of Overseas Development
1,541,000


8. Overseas Aid (Multilateral)
3,613,000


9. Overseas Aid (Bilateral) (including a Supplementary sum of £4,210,000)
35,355,000


10. Overseas Aid (General Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
14,367,000







£


11. Overseas Aid (Colonial Development and Welfare)
6,500,000


12. Commonwealth War Graves Commission
916,000



127,576,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS III

That a sum, not exceeding £118,261,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Home Office
11,050,000


2. Scottish Home and Health Department
1,815,000


3. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
9,250,000


4. Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)
1,393,000


5. Police, England and Wales
57,740,000


6. Police, Scotland
8,968,000


7. Prisons, England and Wales
15,805;000


8. Prisons, Scotland
2,166,000


9. Child Care, England and Wales
3,230,000


10. Child Care, Scotland
780,000


11. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)
53,000


12. County Courts
680,000


13. Legal Aid Fund
4,194,000


14. Law Charges
693,000


15. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
375,000


16. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
69,000



118,261,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

That a sum, not exceeding £511,830,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Board of Trade
5,740,000


2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports, etc., and Shipping and Other Services)
5,043,000


3. Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
27,961,000


4. Export Credits
900


5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)
900


6. Ministry of Labour
23,646,000






£


7. Ministry of Aviation
172,200,000


8. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
900


9. Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)
28,300,000


10. Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
7,866,000


11. Ministry of Transport
3,090,000


12. Roads, etc., England
124,998,000


13. Roads, etc., Scotland
19,881,000


14. Roads, etc. Wales
12,430,000


15. Transport Services
4,372,000


16. Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)
55,682,000


17. Ministry of Power
2,432,000


18. Ministry of Technology
8,761,000


19. Atomic Energy
9,425,000


20. Atomic Energy (Trading Fund Services)
900



511,830,600

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS V

That a sum, not exceeding £216,579,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
16,374,000


2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £151,000)
6,417,000


3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £550,000)
55,771,000


4. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £265,000)
11,277,000


5. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
104,833,000


6. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
9,704,000


7. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £26,000)
7,130,000


8. Food (Strategic Reserves)
900


9. Fisheries Grants and Services
3,316,000


10. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,757,000



216,579,900

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

That a sum, not exceeding £1,929,690,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000)
16,682,000


2. Scottish Development Department
2,705,000


3. Welsh Office
1,352,000


4. Housing, England
51,736,000


5. Housing, Scotland
10,947,000


6. Housing, Wales
3,376,000


7. General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
457,240,000


8. General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
46,530,000


9. Rate Deficiency Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
113,870,000


10. Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
16,330,000


11. Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (including a Supplementary sum of £125,000)
600,000


12. Forestry Commission
8,694,000


13. Ministry of Health
3,706,000


14. National Health Service, &amp;c. (Hospital Services, &amp;c), England and Wales
371,178,000


15. National Health Service (Executive Council's Services), England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £5,218,000)
158,558,000


16. Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales
32,171,000


17. National Health Service (Superannuation, &amp;c), England and Wales
900


18. National Health Service, &amp;c, Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £590,000)
72,003,000


19. National Health Service (Superannuation, &amp;c), Scotland
900


20. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
5,716,000


21. National Insurance
205,600,000


22. Family Allowances
95,975,000


23. National Assistance Board
175,168,000


24. War Pensions, &amp;c.
79,552,000



1,929,690,800

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

That a sum, not exceeding £269,269,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Department of Education and Science
3,341,000


2. Education: Departmental (England and Wales) (including a Supplementary sum of £185,000)
84,854,000


3. Awards to Students (England and Wales)
1,308,000


4. Scottish Education Department
17,403,000


5. Teachers' Superannuation (England and Wales)
900


6. Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland)
113,000


7. Universities and Colleges, &amp;c., Great Britain
128,074,000


8. Science Research Council
18,090,000


9. Natural Environment Research Services (Revised sum)
-757,000


9A. Natural Environment Research Council
3,457,000


10. Medical Research Council
6,852,000


11. Agricultural Research Council
6,208,000


12. Grants for Science
326,000



269,269,900

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

That a sum, not exceeding £5,529,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. British Museum
907,000


2. British Museum (Natural History)
589,000


3. Science Museum
298,000


4. Victoria and Albert Museum
529,000


5. Imperial War Museum
91,000


6. London Museum
50,000


7. National Gallery
114,000


8. National Maritime Museum
103,000


9. National Portrait Gallery
45,000


10. Tate Gallery
91,000


11. Wallace Collection
44,000


12. Royal Scottish Museum, &amp;c. (Revised sum)
102,000


13. National Galleries of Scotland
55,000


14. National Library of Scotland
89,000

£


15. National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
25,000


15A. National Museum of Wales and National Library of Wales
497,000


16. Grants for the Arts (Revised sum)
1,900,000



5,529,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

That a sum, not exceeding £235,316,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz:—



£


1. Ministry of Public Building and Works
21,100,000


2. Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom
39,785,000


3. Public Buildings Overseas
5,811,000


4. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)
20,837,000


5. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Army Department)
41,415,000


6. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Air Force Department)
29,078,000


7. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Aviation
6,965,000


8. Works and Buildings for Royal Ordnance Factories
868,000


9. Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £90,000)
583,000


10. Royal Palaces
580,000


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
965,000


12. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
1,009,000


13. Rates on Government Property (including a Supplementary sum of £2,103,000)
15,045,000


14. Stationery and Printing
13,775,000


15. Central Office of Information
6,200,000


16. Government Actuary
29,000


17. Government Hospitality
100,000


18. Civil Superannuation, etc.
31,170,000


19. Post Office Superannuation, etc.
900


20. Additional Married Quarters for the Ministry of Defence
900



235,316,800

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS X

That a sum, not exceeding £5,376,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Charity Commission
250,000


2. Crown Estate Office
133,000


3. Friendly Societies Registry
99,000


4. Royal Mint
900


5. National Debt Office
900


6. Public Works Loan Commission
900


7. Public Trustee
900


8. Land Registry
900


9. Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements
132,000


10. Ordnance Survey
2,729,000


11. Public Record Office
157,000


12. Scottish Record Office
51,000


13. Registrar General's Office
615,000


14. Registrar General's Office, Scotland
96,000


15. Department of the Registers of Scotland
900


16. National Savings Committee
1,109,000



5,376,400

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS XI

That a sum, not exceeding £71,129,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz.—



£


1. Broadcasting (including a Supplementary sum of £11,600,000)
56,497,000


2. Carlisle State Management District
900


3. State Management Districts, Scotland
900


4. Pensions, &amp;c. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
3,991,000


5. Supplements to Pensions, &amp;c. (Overseas Services)
1,232,000


6. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &amp;c.
641,000


7. Irish Land Purchase Services
451,000


8. Development Fund
495,000


9. Secret Service
6,000,000


10. President Kennedy Memorial Appeal
500,000


11. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £19,000)
781,000


12. Winston Churchill Memorial Fund
500,000


13. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
40,000



71,129,800

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1965–66

That a sum, not exceeding £19,059,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Central Defence Staffs, the Defence Secretariat and the Central Defence Scientific Staff and of certain Joint Service Establishments; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

That a sum, not exceeding £391,737,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—



£


2. Royal Naval Reserves
1,377,000


3. Navy Department Headquarters
11,856,000


6. Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services
191,120,000


7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs
177,993,000


8. Miscellaneous Effective Services
9,391,000



391,737,000

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

That a sum, not exceeding £322,720,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—



£


3. Army Department Headquarters
6,600,000


4. Civilians at Outstations
117,140,000


5. Movements
23,320,000


6. Supplies
45,960,000


7. Stores and Equipment
115,000,000


10. Defence Lands and Buildings
14,700,000



322,720,000

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

That a sum, not exceeding £138,560,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during

the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—



£


3. Air Force Department Headquarters
4,780,000


4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office
45,820,000


5. Movements
19,600,000


6. Supplies
50,750,000


9. Non-effective Services
17,610,000



138,560,000

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,187,789 12s. 2d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February 1965 (H.C. 81) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).

Question put and agreed to.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,161,976 4s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to one Vote for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts on the same Vote not offset by a saving in expenditure, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 29th January 1965 (H.C. 96) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).

Question put and agreed to.

AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £656,417 16s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 15th February 1965 (H.C. 104) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, the sum of £4,434,965,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COST OF LIVING

4.8 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's policies which have caused the steep rise in the cost of living since the General Election, a rise which is causing widespread anxiety as well as real hardship, particularly to public service and armed forces pensioners.
Keeping prices steady in a fully employed and growing economy is not an easy matter. It is, therefore, only right that I should freely admit at the beginning of my speech that we, the Tory Party, did not achieve full success ourselves in keeping prices stable. On average, over 13 years prices rose under Tory Governments just over 3 per cent. per annum. During the first six years they rose at the rate of 4½ per cent. per annum and during the last seven years at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum.
The country did not think this record good enough. It had had time to forget that, under the Socialists from 1945 to 1951, prices rose 6½ per cent. per annum. When the election came, one of Labour's firmest pledges was to keep the cost of living steady. Its election manifesto, "The New Britain", promised
… new and more relevant policies to check the … rise in prices … Labour will attack …"—
the problem of rising prices—
… at its roots …".
The First Secretary of State, whom we are glad to see here, gave the pledge triple emphasis. He said:

The continued rise in cost of living can and must and will be halted.
In opposition, the Labour Party criticised rising prices time and again. It fastened on rates, on interest rates, on house prices, on land prices and on prices in the shops. It gave firm pledges on all these.
The Labour Party promised to transfer a large slice of the rate burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. It attacked the 5 per cent. interest rate that was normal under the Tory Government so savagely as to give the public the impression that it would never tolerate a rate of interest as high as 5 per cent. let alone a rate of interest higher than that. It gave a firm pledge that it would not increase taxation. These were all categorical pledges and all related to the cost of living. They were given in the manifesto, in election speeches by the party leaders—and we are glad to see the Prime Minister here—and in speeches made, I am sure sincerely, by hundreds of Labour candidates.
Now let us see what has happened. During the first eight months of office of the Government, there has been an increase in the cost of living of 4·4 per cent.—an annual rate of 6·6 per cent. We are back again to the same pace as took place in the period of office of the Labour Government after the war. Over these eight months, grocery prices are up 6 per cent., an annual rate of 9 per cent. There is not a sign of the Government's famous land price policy—not even a White Paper. Indeed, the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is not even attending this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I see that he is here.
Houses are up in price, although not in number, at a rate of 14 per cent. per annum. Rates are up 14 per cent. The interest rate is now at 6 per cent., but for month after month it was at the panic level of 7 per cent. Nationalised industry prices are up—railway fares by 8 per cent., electricity by 8 to 14 per cent. and hard coke by 18s. 6d. a ton.
The surcharge put, first, 15 per cent. and now 10 per cent. on to the prices of imports, including essential ones. Sixpence has been put on cigarettes, 1d. on beer, 4s. on spirits, 33⅓ per cent. on stamps, 50 per cent. on the excise duty on goods vehicles, £2 10s. on the car tax


and £1 3s. to £3 10s. on motor bicycles. In addition, television and radio licences have been increased. Income Tax has risen by 6d. and there was a 6d. increase on the petrol tax. Many of these rises enter into costs not once but at many stages of production and distribution. The Socialists are doing worse, much worse, even than their previous record.
It is true that, in 1951, the Socialists found the terms of trade turning savagely against them due to the Korea War. Therefore, part of the explanation of the 6½ per cent. average rise was due to that which was beyond their control. But now there is no such excuse. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month said that import prices are tending to fall. World food prices were 12 per cent. lower in May this year than they were in 1964. Import prices as a whole were 2·3 per cent. less this spring than last spring. In fact, there can be no doubt whatever that our rising prices are home made.
I must warn the Government and the House that it may possibly be that, with Vietnam taking, we hope, a far smaller and far shorter place in the world scene than Korea, commodity prices may tend to harden. The terms of trade which have recently moved gently in our favour may start to move against us and thus make our home prices situation even worse.
The prices prospect is worrying. Professor Paish shows in an article in this quarter's issue of the Irish Banking Review that, in previous similar stages of the economic cycle, the rise in prices has continued long after Government checks on the pace of the economy. Certainly, the Government, by their package announced yesterday, intend to check the pace of the economy and this phenomenon results, of course, from the fact that increased earnings already granted to the bulk of the population continue to be received even after the output of goods has been checked. There is, therefore, at that stage in the cycle over the next few months more money to buy fewer goods, and the result can only be one of two things or a combination of both—a further rise in prices or an increase in imports. This must continue until, of course, the earnings curve flattens out to follow the output curve.

Many of the price and tax increases I have listed have not yet had time to work their way fully through the economy and into the shops.
So the present position is one of a widespread rise in prices at an increasing pace. Nearly every item on every shopping list of every household has risen and is rising in price. Nearly every bill has gone up. Nearly every service costs more. The only exceptions, broadly, are the results of the courage of this side of the House in passing the Resale Prices Act last year, with no help from the Labour Party. The prices have fallen, for instance, of sewing machines, nylon goods, light fittings, vacuum cleaners, petrol, tyres, razor blades, paint, wallpaper, sports goods, refrigerators, heaters and other electrical appliances and drink—although, of course, the Chancellor put the price up again by extra taxation. Yet, despite the beneficial beginnings—and they are only beginnings—of the Act, the cost of living is rising now at a rate of nearly 7 per cent. per annum.
The prospect is that the rise will continue. The Socialists may well beat their own 1945–51 record with prices rising not just at 6½ per cent. per annum, as now, but at 7 per cent. or even 8 per cent. per annum. Our Motion refers to widespread anxiety. The public seems to feel that the rapid price increases will continue. It feels that the Government are floundering out of their depth and out of control.
Although actual pensioners are still substantially better off from their increased pensions, those on fixed incomes are inevitably suffering. Our Motion refers, in particular, to one group of these, most on fixed incomes—the Armed Forces and public service pensioners, whose case was put in a recent Adjournment debate forcefully by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) and supported, as usual vigorously and effectively, by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
During the election, promises were made to the Armed Forces and public service pensioners in terms which gave the clear impression—and they were promises by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister and by his right hon. Friend who is now the Colonial Secretary


—that a Labour Government would look very sympathetically on giving to these pensioners what is called parity. These promises were made before the election in answer to specific applications from the associations representing these people.
What has happened since? Absolutely nothing. In reply to the Adjournment debate which I mentioned, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy gave a completely empty reply. We shall expect during this debate to have a firm answer to what the Government intend to do to honour the pledges which they gave to the Armed Forces and public service pensioners.
How did the Government get the country into this mess? In charity, the first thing which needs to be said is that the problem of governing a country is not as simple as it looks in opposition. Prices are the result of supply and demand. One of the first duties of a Government is to get supply and demand into the right balance. I am glad that there is no disagreement about that.
In October, it was the considered opinion of the present Government that on the home front the balance was right. I quote from paragraph 7 of the White Paper issued on 26th October, 1964, 10 days after the election, which said that there was
no undue pressure on resources calling for action".
So, in the view of the present Government, they inherited a fully employed, but not over-stretched economy, with a balance of payments problem; but it was not in the Government's view, expressed unambiguously in this White Paper, overstretched.
They put as the first priority of their economic policy on the home front an incomes policy, and the whole country will pay tribute to the energy and sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary. The Government concentrated on getting an incomes policy going, but meanwhile, by a series of inept blunders, they shattered foreign confidence. They exposed sterling to extreme pressure. They took no action at all on a whole series of wage increases far beyond any productivity gain and they allowed the economy to overheat and confidence to evaporate.
But the extraordinary thing is that, with an economist as Prime Minister, they never seemed to assess the true economic state which they—in the light of that assurance of 26th October—had allowed to develop. Instead of dealing quickly and relatively painlessly with what in those early days were controllable home problems, they have dribbled out a whole series of ineffective doses of ill-judged, ill-timed and ill-managed expedients.
Let me list the instalments to the House. There was first the November Budget, when petrol tax was put up. Later in the same month, Bank Rate went up to 7 per cent., despite all the promises. In early December, the credit squeeze began with a letter from the Governor of the Bank of England. In April, there was the Budget with taxes up all round. Later in the same month, special deposits withdrawing £90 million from circulation were required. Then there was a pause of a few weeks, but in May another turn was put on the credit squeeze screw, as though already the prognostications of the Government in the Budget had not developed, and in June hire-purchase deposits were raised.
But the culminating tragi-comedy, because that is what it is, is that only 13 days ago, in early July, on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not propose to take any further action to restrain the economy. Yesterday, within a fortnight, he produced what, in effect, was his third Budget in eight months. I ask the House to recognise what a floundering Government it must be who make nine separate attempts to get back to the right level of pressure on resources which, by their admission in the White Paper of 26th October, they found on taking office.
It is this balance between supply and demand which is at the heart of the problem of prices. Prices are the result of supply and demand. On the supply side, whether production, distribution or services, there are a number of factors—skill of management, techniques, innovation, design, marketing, good labour relations. But one of the most important is the cost of labour per unit of output. The cost of labour does not just


reflect the cost of wages. Earnings include fringe benefits. They include the effect of overtime resulting from shorter hours and they reflect above all earnings drift. Wages drift, earnings drift, we are told, has been higher in the last few months than in the whole of the previous 13 years.
It is primarily the employer's job to cut costs by every proper means, but it is not always possible even for the best employers and managers to offset the scale of earnings increases now current. The Government promised to attack the problem of rising prices at its roots, but what are its roots? I suggest that they are the ability of wage earners to extract from employers earnings larger than practicable increases in productivity.
The Government have totally failed to restrain disproportionate leaps in earnings and to insist on productivity bargains. They have totally failed to control the balance of supply and demand, so that employers just cannot put up prices without losing profitable turnover.
New and relevant policies were promised and we now know what that promise meant. It meant the Prices and Incomes Board.
I have a great respect and admiration for Mr. Aubrey Jones. I admire his emphasis on the productivity-pricesearnings bargain by which consumers, workers and investors all benefit. But Mr. Aubrey Jones stresses that his powers are inevitably limited. I was impressed by a speech which he made on 9th July when he spoke of two therapies being needed, one to deal with the immediate fever—and that lies with the Government—and the other, which is his Board's responsibility, to operate on the relations between productivity, incomes and prices.
How have the Government carried out their side of the therapy? On 42 major settlements so far, only one is below the norm of 3½ per cent. set by the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary. Ironically, that is an award to 204,000 hospital workers of 2½ per cent. In the Labour manifesto I find:
Labour's incomes policy will not be unfairly directed at lower paid workers and public employees.
The average rise in wage rates has been 6 per cent., to which must be added about 2 per cent. for drift. On the general task

of getting supply and demand into balance, the therapy of dealing with the immediate fever, in Mr. Aubrey Jones's phrase, I have already listed the nine dithering instalments of Government ineptitude.
What is the proper policy? Prices and earnings interact on each other. Changes in one produce repercussions in the other. That is why Governments must use policies that bite on both. They must get the balance of supply and demand right first. Secondly, they must stimulate and enforce competition. It is competition which should enforce better management or bankruptcy. Thirdly, and hardest of all, the Government must try to persuade the workers just how quickly earnings could rise and prices could fall if, and only if, workers would co-operate fully with good management—the good management that competition should produce.
We on this side of the House believe in a high earning, low-cost, competitive, compassionate society. We want high earnings just as much as we want low costs.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Witty or angry interjections from time to time are in order, but not running commentaries.

Sir K. Joseph: We want high earnings just as much as we want low costs. The two can go together, given good management and workers' co-operation. But the Government must get supply and demand right, or it is too easy for the inefficient business and management to flourish. "It is not we", said the First Secretary on 11th May, "who are stopping industry being more competitive." But it is the Government who are putting an obstacle in the way of competition if they allow demand to get too high. Speeches and White Papers cannot be a substitute for action.
The Government have now produced their third Budget. My right hon. Friends will be commenting upon it, and the whole House will hope that it will achieve its purpose of improving the financial position. But if the energy put into the incomes policy had gone into a more accurate assessment of the country's needs, and more stimulus given to competition, this long series of floundering


and irresolute expedients would not have been necessary. People cut costs not because of White Papers, but because they must cut them to survive. If competition is really biting, employers just will not agree to pay wage increases and drift which they cannot absorb. But the Government have failed to put competition in the forefront of their policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): We hear a lot about competition and about the need to get supply and demand into balance so that competition becomes effective. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what he means by getting supply and demand into balance; what he intends to cut and what levels of unemployment he is proposing?

Sir K. Joseph: In the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what I understood the Government's intention to be was to redeploy some labour from home industries to the export industries, and that we believe is the proper objective. Part of the necessary means of getting there is to achieve supply and demand in the right proportions. I admit this is very difficult. The Prime Minister asked how. The answer is by a proper assessment, which, as an economist, he should have been competent to perform, of the real state of the economy.
I did not intend to say this, but it has been forced from me. Time and again we have had policies announced from the Dispatch Box and then totally contradicted within days, or weeks. The assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, that he contemplated no further cuts on our demand at home was contradicted within two weeks by the package he gave us yesterday.
To get stable prices the Government must encourage personal effort. They must encourage new investment and growth industry, and they must attack restrictive practices. The Government have done the exact opposite. They have decreased personal incentives by raised taxation, they have devalued investment allowances, damaged growth industries by the Corporation Tax and they have struck restrictive practices out of the

terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions.
The Government have flinched from effective action, just as they flinched from resale price maintenance. They have made nine dithering attempts to balance supply and demand; competition they have avoided like the plague—civil airlines strangled; the Geddes Report shelved; coal given more protection. Let the Government get their priorities right. Competition, and efficiency. Stop distracting businessmen with complex and often damaging new taxes. Stop the farce over steel; and let the First Secretary laugh about that. Clarify investment allowances, act on the Geddes Report, be tougher with disproportionate wage demands, and insist on productivity bargains.
The Government may say now how hard it all is, but they gave the country a very different impression before the election.
The Government won votes by promises that they are now brazenly breaking. What the country was promised was no higher taxes, lower rates, lower interest rates, no more stop-go and, above all, stable prices. What the country is getting is higher taxes, higher rates, higher interest rates, the toughest of all credit squeezes, back to building licensing and ever-higher prices, which will go on rising.
The Government have smashed their election pledges; they smashed the aircraft industry, they smashed the civil airlines, they smashed foreign confidence. They even smashed their record for rising prices and they grabbed £500 million extra in taxes. It is a smash and grab, stop, stop, stop Government. Not go with Labour, but Labour should go—and the sooner the better.

4.59 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): Even though the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) forgot to move his own Motion, he has apparently been trying to persuade the House, and the country, that if the Tories were in power today we should automatically achieve some sort of price stability. He did not sound to me as if he had even persuaded himself of that. If that is not what he was trying to


argue, it would help if he would say so straight away and then we could conduct this debate rather less on party lines.
Nobody in the country believes at this moment that the party opposite has any recipe whatsoever, except outright deflation, for keeping prices steady. Everybody remembers what happened during the 13 years of Tory rule. Between October, 1951, and October, 1964, the cost of living rose by 51 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was candid enough to admit this quite clearly at the beginning of his speech. That was what the Conservative Party really meant by talk about mending the hole in the housewife's purse. In the very last year, from October, 1963, to October, 1964, the cost of living rose by 4 per cent. in 12 months.

Sir K. Joseph: But the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "SO soon?"] What the right hon. Gentleman has said so inaccurately states the position that I must intervene. In our 13 years of office, although the cost of living rose by 50 per cent., earnings rose by 100 per cent. and pensions by 140 per cent. Under the present Government, earnings have risen less than half as much as the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman interrupts too often, he will do very great damage to his own case.
The fact is that in those 13 years, when the cost of living rose by 51 per cent., we had recurrent deflations and stagnations and a very slow rise indeed in production and output. We had in those years neither stability of prices nor a steady rise in production. During the past year, although certainly prices have risen, we have at least achieved a marked rise in output and employment at the same time.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, that the problem before us is to secure growth in output without a rise in prices. But at least in the past eight months we have achieved a rapid growth in output. In the previous 13 years we had rapidly rising prices and a miserably slow growth of the economy at the same time. Today, at this moment, output is higher than ever before and unemployment is down to the extremely low level of 1·2 per cent. over the whole

country. The Index of Production was 4 per cent. higher in May this year, which is the latest month for which we have a figure, than it was in May, 1964.
According to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman failed to move the rise in living costs in this country since last October is wholly due to the policy of the Government. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that living costs between last October and April this year in Holland rose—more steeply than in this country—in Belgium, in Denmark—as steeply as they rose here—in France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, if the rise in the cost of living is due to the policy of the Government? In all those countries, as the right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well, the rise in the cost of living last year was manifestly due to the rising level of demand which has gone hand in hand with the growth of the European economies, including our own, during this period.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, mentioned the level of import prices and the terms of trade, but he failed to tell the country this. Despite all the talk which we hear about falling primary produce prices in the world, the fact is that the United Kingdom's import prices today are over 7 per cent. higher than they were in 1962 when the Conservative Party was in power and, indeed, 4 per cent. higher than they were even in 1963. However, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman—this was one of the implications of his speech today—that it is quite wrong of the Government to use the instrument of higher indirect taxes to restrain purchasing power when it becomes excessive. This is a very extraordinary argument to be advanced by the Conservative Party.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite, during their years of office, repeatedly increased indirect taxes in order to moderate what they regarded as inflationary forces. The tobacco tax was raised by Mr. Harold Macmillan as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget of April, 1956. It was again raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) as Chancellor of the Exchequer in April, 1960. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, knowing that he is the guilty man in this debate,


absconded from the Chamber before we came to this part of the argument. He raised the tobacco tax yet again in July, 1961, and the tax on beer, and the tax on spirits, and the tax on petrol. In April, 1962, I regret to say that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who at least has had the courage to stay here and to face the music, raised Purchase Tax on the whole range of items taxed at 5½ per cent. to 10 per cent. in one fell swoop.
However, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now converted to a new doctrine and believe that higher indirect taxes should never be used to cream off excessive demand, what do they advocate we should do in the present situation? That is what the country would like to know. Can they possibly deny that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not raised taxes in both November and April Budgets of last winter and spring demand would have been wildly excessive today, that prices would have been out of hand, and the balance of payments no longer in control? We should like to know whether they agree with that or not. If they deny it, there is no informed economic opinion either at home or abroad which agrees with them.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The point that we have been trying to make is that the timing of the tax changes has been so hopelessly wrong. It is because the timing has been wrong that we are in the present situation, with the build-up of wage claims pressure and the Government having to clamp down.

Mr. Jay: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: the timing was wrong. These steps should have been taken by the Conservative Party years ago.
If hon. Members opposite do not deny this, and if they would not have raised indirect taxes, what would they have done in the circumstances of last winter? Would they have raised direct taxation more steeply? If so, I find it difficult to understand the point of all their votes against the Finance Bill throughout this spring and summer. Or do they want a tougher credit squeeze and still more hire purchase restrictions? If so, perhaps we could be told this afternoon. It

does not seem as if we are to get an answer. [Interruption.] If we have an answer, we shall be very grateful. We should like to know what hon. Members opposite think should have been done.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East did not tell us what policy he thought should be pursued. However, he paid a tribute, which I share, to Mr. Aubrey Jones, in his position as Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. But he entirely failed to make clear whether the Conservative Party supports the general purpose of the Government's prices and incomes policy. Representatives of both sides of industry support this policy. Are we to understand that the official Opposition alone are against an agreed incomes policy? If they are the only opponents of this policy, do they think that this is a very public-spirited contribution to the country's economic recovery? Perhaps right hon. Gentlemen opposite, either now or later in the debate, will tell us whether they support the general purposes of our policy.
I had supposed until recently that at least responsible members of the Conservative Party agreed with the leaders of the Confederation of British Industry, and the other industrial organisations that a general and collective effort to restrain the rises in prices and incomes all round was necessary. However, we have just had a remarkable contribution to wisdom on this subject from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who, also, has not stayed with us this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, a would-be leader of the party opposite. It might be said that he does not get much support in that effort, but he is at least some sort of shadow spokesman for something or other and he therefore speaks for his party. According to The Guardian of 22nd July, speaking at Hove on the evening before, he said:
Anyone who deliberately gets less than the best possible return for his labour, anyone exercising restraint is guilty of a kind of sabotage.
That is fine, patriotic advice to give to a laggard exporter or an unofficial striker at the present time.
The right hon. Member, who sits on the Front Bench opposite, then described


the prices and incomes policy, which is supported by almost all the responsible industrial organisations on both sides of industry in the country, as "a most monstrous pantomime". That is the sort of advice given to the public today, to wage earners and profit earners alike, by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and that apparently is the sort of selfish free-for-all which we should have to expect if right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the right hon. Gentleman say at this juncture where his right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) fits in?

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman sits below the Gangway, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West sits on the Front Bench, and, there again, I do not think that he is authorised to interpret the views of his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Paul Bryan: May we ask where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton sits?

Mr. Jay: He sits above the Gangway, and he is very well qualified to answer for himself. I say that much, therefore, in view of the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the sort of speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East himself in opening the debate.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is now in his seat. We shall be delighted if the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West also comes into the Chamber. I believe, frankly, speaking for myself and not for any others of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that what the country wants at this moment is not to listen to a great deal of party argument, but to understand the causes of the economic differences which beset us, and see the road out of them, however hard and uphill that road may be.
First, I believe that we have got to realise that economic growth and high employment necessarily involve a high level of demand and, indeed, in the case of the United Kingdom, a tendency for pressure on the balance of payments and

for imports to rise and exports to be held back. Unless, therefore, we relapse into stagnation, which is to give up the problem and not to solve it, we must expect that from time to time, if the economy is to be intelligently managed, the Government must restrain an increase in the flow of purchasing power which has become or is likely to become excessive.
I am endeavouring to enlighten the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If restraint is exercised through credit restriction, then it can be said that that restrains investment instead of consumption, and that what we ought to do is to put taxes on personal spending. If that advice is accepted and indirect taxes are raised, then it can be said, as the right hon. Gentleman tended to argue this afternoon, that the Government is itself pushing up the cost of living. That dilemma is inescapable with indirect taxes.
If one tries to mop up demand inflation by such taxes, one is bound to some extent to inflate prices and cost inflation at the same time. But if, for those reasons, one concentrates solely on increasing direct taxes—and I gather that the Opposition are not asking us to do that this afternoon, and, if they are, they can tell us so—then it can be said that one is striking at incentives and investment.
There are objections to any measure of restraint, which can very easily be stated. But if one has the courage to act and not just to let things slide and stagnate, the sensible policy, I suggest, is to rely on several of these controls at the same time and not push any of them to extremes. That is what the present Government have done and will do. Let us remember that the whole of the dilemma arises from the fact that output in this country is now growing and that employment and demand are extremely high. If the economy were deflated and stagnant, then, as the price of failure, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would have the great pleasure of reducing taxes all round. But that is not the situation today.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned this afternoon some of the rises in charges by nationalised industries and public enterprises over the last year.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman may not have been in the House when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his statement, but he has just made a point about maintaining full employment. His hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) clearly implied that the action taken yesterday by the Chancellor may undermine that, and the Chancellor was not able to reassure him. In the light of that, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to claim full employment as a permanent feature of the Government's action.

Mr. Jay: I was in the Chamber, and I was coming to that point. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would not waste time.
I was saying that right hon. Gentlemen opposite complain about rises in charges by nationalised industries during the past year. But, here again, there is a basic dilemma which we have got to face if we are going to be serious about these issues. If public enterprises never raised their charges, they would become a charge upon the taxpayer and, in the end, the enterprises themselves, I believe, would become demoralised.
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves, on this issue, recognised that by publishing their White Paper on the Finance of Nationalised Industries in 1961, which laid it down that those industries ought to cover their costs, including their capital costs. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in so far as they object to increases in charges by nationalised industries, are now simply criticising us and those enterprises for fulfilling the obligations which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves laid upon them in that White Paper.
Nor, in my view, can anyone who honestly faces these issues really doubt that some sort of incomes and prices policy is necessary today if we are to keep the rise in the cost of living down?

Mr. Eric Lubbock: rose—

Mr. Jay: I had better get on.
I admit that I have at times been sceptical myself about the possibility of an incomes policy, and that it might perhaps have been argued until a few years ago that if import prices did not rise

and if reckless mistakes like the 1957 Rent Act, which the right hon. Gentleman described as "a compassionate and competitive policy", or some words of that kind—could have been avoided, we could have achieved growth and full employment without any sort of incomes policy.
I do not believe that one can seriously argue that now. If we have an incomes free-for-all, in a fully employed expanding economy prices are almost certain to rise. To allow that to happen would, I agree, be a perfectly possible policy. But the weakest would go to the wall, and those belonging to the strongest organisations or holding the best batch of equity shares would come off best. Export costs would rise and the balance of payments would get completely out of hand.
Therefore, I would like to ask those who support the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is that what they really want—a free-for-all in incomes and prices—or do they really want outright deflation as the alternative? There again, it would be more honest if we were told by people who advocate that sort of thing what they are really urging upon the country.
What we on this side say at least is that if prices can be kept down—and that is what this debate is about—a concerted incomes and prices policy, with all its difficulties and strains, as certainly there will be, is indispensable. If one accepts that, one must accept the central principle of the Government's policy: first, that it must be an agreed and not imposed policy; and, secondly, that it must cover all incomes and prices and rents and not merely salaries and wages. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has been tire-lessly exerting himself to achieve. If right hon. Members opposite profess to agree with that objective, they will not much impress the country by pretending to disagree with the methods pursued to achieve it.
Every responsible person knows that that is the right policy. The real question today is whether it will gain enough public support and have enough time to succeed. Those who obstruct it will incur a heavy responsibility for the rise in prices which is inevitable if it fails.
If this policy succeeds, one of its principal advantages will be to protect pensioners and old people, who would be bound to suffer from the sort of free-for-all advocated by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. In addition to that, however—I say this because the Motion contains references to pensioners—the Government have recognised from the very start of their life that substantial direct help must be given at the same time to pensioners and to old people.
That is why, despite all the acute economic difficulties which we inherited last autumn from the previous Government, we announced last November the biggest increase in the State retirement pension since 1948 and the biggest increase ever in war pensions. Certainly, that announcement increased some of our difficulties abroad, but in my view it was absolutely right all the same.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we also at that time raised the following other benefits: unemployment and sickness benefits, industrial injury benefits, widow's pension, the 10s. widow's pension and National Assistance rates. The maximum benefit also of the abolition of prescription charges went, as we all know, to old people and pensioners, including Service and war pensioners.
In spite of all this, the Opposition, in their Motion, profess to feel anxiety about the needs of public service and Armed Forces pensioners. The Government have granted all the increases in benefits which I have described in the nine months in which they have so far been in office and we are now reviewing the needs of public service and Armed Forces pensioners to see what needs to be done.
Under the previous Government, however, three years and five months was allowed to go by between the operative date of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, and January, 1963, when the 1962 Act came into effect. Before that, three years and four months elapsed between the operative dates of the 1956 and the 1959 Acts. Hon. Members opposite do not, therefore, have any strong case for criticising us for tardiness in increasing these public service pensions.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his

right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and attention was drawn to this today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—made a definite pledge of parity in public service and Armed Forces pensions. In the House of Commons last week, when I drew this to the attention of the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, he appeared to deny that such a promise had ever been given. Is the right hon. Gentleman now standing positively by that pledge?

Mr. Jay: What I am saying is that we regard this as an extremely important issue and we are reviewing comprehensively the needs of these pensioners to decide what needs to be done. We are doing this within nine months, whereas the previous Government took more than three years to take any action.

Sir T. Beamish: That does not answer the question.

Mr. Jay: That is my answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Sir T. Beamish: It is a bad answer.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to give way to me earlier, because I am sympathetic basically to his incomes policy. My question, however, is how he can expect wage earners to limit their demands to 3½ per cent. per annum and pensioners to demand nothing whatever when nationalised undertakings are allowed to impose increases of up to 13·3 per cent. in their charges without reference to the National Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Jay: I always give way, other things being equal, to the hon. Member. On the other hand, I try to achieve brevity. I assure him that the increases in charges of nationalised industries, in spite of all I have said, are not excluded from reference, where appropriate, to the National Prices and Incomes Board, as, I am sure, the hon. Member understands.
It is also true that neither a direct incomes and prices policy nor the whole series of export incentive and promotion measures which the Government have introduced during the last eight months, or even the surcharge on imports, can fully succeed if the flow of demand at home is allowed to become excessive. Indeed, during the last few months almost


certainly—although this is a matter of opinion—the excessive demand in the home market has been frustrating many of the direct measures to promote exports which have been taken by the Government. Therefore, one of the purposes of the measures of restraint announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday was precisely to moderate the present exceedingly high level of internal demand and so to check the rise in prices of which hon. Members opposite are complaining.
The fact is that the expansionist forces in the economy have proved stronger than anybody foresaw last winter and spring. That "anybody" includes the Opposition. I cannot recall that they told us at the time of the April Budget that the Chancellor should have raised taxes more steeply. If they did, they can say so now. My memory is that they voted against the increase in the petrol tax in the November Budget last year and that they voted against the increase in the vehicle tax in Committee on the Finance Bill this year. Presumably, therefore, they are not arguing that they foresaw the high level of demand which we should be experienceing in the late summer. Therefore, if their advice in opposing all these taxes last winter and spring had been followed, the excess demand of which they are complaining today would have been even greater than it is.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am quite certain that other right hon. and hon. Members opposite gave the warning that I did. I warned the Government on 11th November that their Budget at that time was inflationary and was bound to lead to rising costs and that by the summer we would be in a dangerous position.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member may be much wiser than his own Front Bench, but the fact is that he voted in accordance with the decision of his own Front Bench. From all the indicators and from all industrial reports, there is no doubt that the moderate but real excess demand from which we are suffering is causing shortages, swelling imports and holding back potential exports.
That is why further restraint is temporarily necessary, and, of course, restraint of less essential projects such as my right hon. Friend announced yesterday

will enable more essential schemes such as those in development districts, and houses and schools everywhere, and above all exports, to go forward more quickly. The language of priorities, it was once said, is the religion of Socialism. Whatever one thinks about that, it is certainly a necessity of planning at present, and this package of measures is designed to check the rise in prices and to speed up the disappearance of the balance of payments deficit which we inherited from right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite and which has already been halved since a year ago.
These measures are not deflationary, because what we are doing is merely curtailing a present excess of demand over and above what is necessary for full employment, and we have no intention of allowing it to fall below that level. Indeed, if it turned out that the effect of the measures was much greater than was intended, it would be very easy to relax them, but let us understand that, quite contrary to anything that happened while the party opposite was in power, unemployment today is at the extremely low level of 1·2 per cent. over the country as a whole.
By exempting development districts and other areas of high unemployment from the present measures of restraint, which was never done by the party opposite, even when it plunged into outright deflation, we shall reinforce the success that we have had in recent months—I gave chapter and verse and the figures during the Scottish debate on Monday—in giving effective priority at last to the under-employed areas.
If we want to succeed in the essential national task of keeping prices down and keeping our overseas account in balance, we must be prepared at times to use the brake as well as the accelerator, otherwise the economy cannot be intelligently managed. What we must avoid are violent jerks such as the extreme deflation engineered in 1961 by the right hon. and learned member for Wirral, who has also fled from this debate, and the enormous deficit last year engineered by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
From what I heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East this afternoon, it does not sound to me as though right hon. and hon. Gentlemen


opposite have learned very much from the lessons of the last few years. Judging by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, or all that we get from the party opposite is confused advice, blind opposition to whatever the Government do, and divided counsels. The only positive and precise proposals come from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who wants to lead us back in a headlong plunge into unplanned laissez-faire and every man for himself.
The real need today is exactly the reverse. What our economy requires at the moment if we are finally to overcome last year's appalling deficit is firm and planned restraint. The choice is between planned restraint, hard work, greater efficiency and clear priorities, on the one hand; and, on the other, a relapse into the old mixture of selfishness and muddle and deflation which is known in this country as Toryism.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, will he tell us whether the Government stand by the pledge given to the Armed Forces pensioners with regard to parity in pensions?

Mr. Jay: We are reviewing—and I hardly imagine that the House would wish us to take a decision without reviewing the matter—the right course to take in the matter of Armed Forces pensions, and when answering the debate tonight my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will give further particulars of what is intended.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman forgot to move his Amendment. Does he wish to move it now?

Mr. Jay: indicated assent.

Amendment proposed: In line I, leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
approves the Government's policies which have been directed towards bringing to an end the steady rise in the cost of living which had gone on under the previous administration; and in particular welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in greatest need".[Mr. Jay.]

5.18 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I am not: surprised that the right hon.

Gentleman did not move the Amendment. I think that it could have been drafted a good deal better. During the last five years of Conservative Government there was a steady rise of 2½ per cent. a year in the cost of living. I deplored that., but I believe that at the moment none of us can avoid that kind of change when one has an expanding economy. During the last eight months—we have not got the latest figures; curiously enough they have been delayed until after this debate—there has been a rise at the rate of 6½ per cent. per year.
That is a matter which everbody on both sides of the House, quite apart from party politics, has to attack and find solutions for. Naturally everybody on this side of the House is in favour of an effective prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Dan Jones: Not everybody.

Mr. Turton: The view may be expressed that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was directed at a windmill, but whether it was the windmill of Wolverhampton or Nuneaton I was not clear. Broadly speaking, there is general agreement on that. Equally, there is general agreement that if the Chancellor brings in relevant measures to deal with this problem and that of the balance of payments he will get support. The disagreement—and it is not confined to disagreement between one side of the House and another—arises from the fact that many of the measures in the Chancellor's three Budgets have been irrelevant to the problems involved. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by saying that we must avoid violent jerks. In all my experience in the House I have not known three Budgets in eight months, and so I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be very careful about talking as he did.
What worries me is that the Government have not found a way of dealing with this problem of the steep rise in the cost of living. Certainly, they did—as the right hon. Gentleman said—correct the position of those in receipt of National Insurance payments, but, to be fair, naturally it was the largest increase, because, as benefits keep on rising, one has to give a larger increase to cope with a 2½ per cent. per annum rise. Proportionately, it was a good deal less than many


of the previous increases. It was a perfectly proper and normal increase. In the whole period 1954–62, National Insurance payments tended to be increased at three-year intervals, so we should not try to take party credit on either side of the House for what is a purely mechanical feature of National Insurance.
Public service pensions have been increased at three-year intervals. The intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is relevant here. We are not saying that the Socialist Government are slow in raising public service pensions. At the election, they gave a definite pledge, to which in the last Parliament nearly all back benchers on both sides of the House were committed—parity of pensions. We are arguing that that pledge should be repeated, and are not content with the statement simply that the pledge is being "reviewed." That was the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he, therefore, see that whoever winds up the debate for the Government makes clear where they stand with regard to service and public service pensions? At the moment, the position is unfair. As the cost of living rises, it is growing more unjust to the older pensioners who are concerned.
There was one point in the Chancellor's statement yesterday which I deplore greatly. The problem is that politicians of all parties have not been able to get complete stability in the cost of living. In the case of this Government through certain measures like the petrol tax, a vast increase of costs was created, which is one of the factors which has precipitated this rise. What is inescapable is that certain people in our community are very much worse off as a result of the higher rise in the cost of living—in particular, those living on fixed incomes and especially those who, for certain reasons, are not in receipt of a pension. I was shocked by the Chancellor's statement yesterday when he said that one of the measures which he was taking in order to get over his difficulty about balance of payments was to postpone the measure for an income guarantee. It is wrong to make these people the victims of the problem which the nation is facing. They are least able to bear it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Airey Neave) introduced a Bill, which I supported, to see that a partial pension was given to all those of a certain age who were disqualified from receiving pensions. By a Parliamentary trick, a debate on that Bill was avoided, but a debate did take place at about the same time that that debate would have taken place. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, without having explained why she did not support the Measure which she and the party opposite did not dare to have debated, said then:
We, on the other hand, have a clear policy for the old people in our incomes guarantee. We are working very busily on it at the present time. We regard this as a very urgent matter"—
I underline those words, "We regard this as a very urgent matter"—
and it will be introduced as quickly as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March. 1965, Vol. 709, c. 1156]
This is a complete betrayal of that undertaking. I ask the Socialist Government to reconsider that part of the Chancellor's statement and, if they will not introduce their Measure to deal with those people who are the worst victims of the rise in the cost of living, to support my hon. Friend's Measure or to introduce one on the same lines, so that at least those people shall have that same amount of State generosity which is given to those who qualify for pensions under the National Insurance Acts. Surely, that is not an unreasonable demand.
now turn to the problem which faces the country. It has not been made sufficiently clear that we are not living within our means. If this had been tackled by an ordinary household, they would have looked to see what they could cut down immediately in order to balance their books. I disagree with the Chancellor's measures in his first, second and third Budgets, in that I do not believe that those measures were sufficiently directed towards curing that imbalance of payments. Many of them were inflationary in character.
In his first Budget, it is quite clear that the surcharge—which was illegal and which embittered all our allies on the Continent—had the effect of putting up prices in this country but had a negligible effect on the quantity of imports coming in in those categories. In my view, as it


was not selective, it tended to be of little value. In his second Budget, the Chancellor made a direct attack on overseas investment which will lead to a great decline in our exports to the overseas countries concerned. However, its penal provisions cannot take effect for at least three years, though the loss of confidence will come, as with the surcharge, immediately.
In his third Budget, the main provision is the postponement of starting dates. This will have a considerable effect, but not for 12 to 15 months, after which it will have a very grave effect on employment in certain areas. It will not have the immediate effect of cutting down our expenditure on luxuries. A very good letter in The Times on 20th July from Sir Roy Harrod drew attention to the fact that what is wrong with this country is the very large imports of luxury goods. I do not think that people realise that, seven years ago, we were spending about £38 million on imports of manufactured goods, according to the Trade and Navigation Accounts. That was in the first five months of the year. If we compare that with the President of the Board of Trade's figures for the first five months of this year, we find that they have risen by nearly 200 per cent. and now stand at £113½ million.

Mr. Jay: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is the direct consequence of the decision of his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1958–59 to remove import quotas on these manufactured imports. Having removed them, it is more difficult to put them back than it would otherwise have been.

Mr. Turton: I do not want to blame anybody but to consider the position and what we can do about it. I have felt all along that, when faced with a balance of payments difficulty, the present Government, on gaining power, would have done better to have adopted the legal method of placing restrictions on selected items of luxury imports for a temporary period. I believe that such an act would have been understood by the exporting countries, which would have regarded it as being in line with our agreements with them. It would certainly have been better than the surcharge,

which caused bitterness without having any effect.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps I should remind my right hon. Friend that increased imports should be balanced by increased exports. That undoubtedly took place as a result of the liberalising policies which were clearly and properly adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when he was President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Turton: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I am pointing out that when the emergency stage arrived the course I suggested would have been far superior to the surcharge.
It is amazing to think that when we have an agricultural policy which is resulting in the production of more and more food—food production is increasing by 6 per cent. a year—the cost of our food imports in the first five months of this year was about £100 million more than the comparable cost seven years ago—£697 million compared with £597 million. It cannot be right, at this time, to discourage farmers from producing more, particularly since their efforts help to solve our balance of payments problem. I also cannot believe that this country requires the quantity of food which we at present import.
In my view the right way to tackle the present balance of payments problem is to decide that for the next six months the nation will save £200 million on imports; £100 million on the importation of miscellaneous manufactured goods—and, by selection, to pick out what I have described as luxury imports—and the other £100 million on food imports.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: As a temporary measure.

Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend is, of course, right in commenting that this would be a temporary measure and should be regarded in that light. Our main object must be to so increase our exports that we can absorb our imports without causing balance of payments problems.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade will take advantage of the


Commonwealth Trade Conference to obtain a complete reappraisal of our trade with the Commonwealth countries. I am sure that great changes could be made, particularly from the exporting point of view. What Sir William McFadzean has done for our exports to Europe could similarly be done by an export council and other measures for our exports to the Commonwealth. I am sure that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, are behind the Government in their efforts to increase Commonwealth trade, but this object will only be achieved if there is sufficient preparation. We must put forward at the Commonwealth Trade Conference specific proposals to deal with the problem of commodities because unless we can get our customers rich they will not be good customers.
The President of the Board of Trade does not appear to be facing up to the realities of the situation. We must get down to brass tacks. We can get out of our difficulties, but only by producing more and consuming less. Not sufficient people realise this and it must be said in plain terms to the general public.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I hope that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will forgive me if I do not comment on his remarks, because I wish to concentrate on the question of value compared with the price, quality and quantity of certain goods. I intend to deal with three basic commodities which are used in virtually every household and I particularly wish to compare value and price from the point of view of the poorer sections of the community.
In recent years, particularly since certain orders went out in October, 1964, the quality of bread has gone down while the price of this important commodity has gone up. Although the quality of milk at the farm has been improved, its quality when it arrives on the doorstep has gone down. The third factor is the cost of ordinary day-to-day medicines—the type of medicines which sensible housewives give to their families. I will show that, in terms of quality and price, the housewife is being taken for a real and metaphorical ride.
I will deal, first, with medicines, a particularly interesting set of commodities to consider. The standards which are laid down by the Medical Council and the Pharmaceutical Society are extremely good, but when one considers the prices of the proprietary brands of the same medicines one finds that they are frequently twice or three times the amount of the equivalent standard.
In March, 1965, Which? published a list of day-to-day medicines which are used by the sensible housewife. The publication made a comparison between the standard formula obtainable at any chemist and the prices of the proprietary brands. Bearing that comparison in mind, I appeal to the Government to take action to see that greater publicity is given to that list. If that were done the cost of living would be reduced for all families in general and families living on small incomes in particular.
From time to time we all suffer from indigestion or experience headaches. That applied particularly to hon. Gentlemen opposite last week, although they may think that some of their problems were resolved last Tuesday. If we wish to relieve our aches and pains and use the ordinarily advertised proprietary brands of medicines—and the same applies if we bruise a part of our body and wish to buy something to relieve the pain and heal the wound—we find that we are paying three or four times the price we should be paying.
Despite this, there seems to be a conspiracy to disguise the true facts from the British public. The President of the Board of Trade would be doing a very great service to all the housewives of this country if he took steps whereby these costs could be clearly brought home to people. For example, it is known that the Macleans brand of indigestion tablets, frequently used in the House, especially by hon. Members opposite, are twice the price of an identical brand which can be obtained on the standard formula. It would be a great step forward if either through educational establishments or through publicity my right hon. Friend could bring this fact home to the public.
My next point is ever more important. It concerns what in many ways is the basic food of the country—bread. It is called bread but many of us would prefer


to use the expression "blown up steamed putty", because we have been suffering from automation in the bakeries. As the price of this product has gone up, so its value and quality have gone down rather alarmingly until in the end we find ourselves with an industry with very little growth rate. The bakers are experiencing great difficulty in expanding sales. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) emphasised that it was important to have plenty of competition, but within the last few years the baking industry of this country has got into the hands of monopolies. Four groups dominate 75 per cent. of the bakery industry of this country, with some alarming consequences. Certainly the price has not fallen, but equally certain the quality has gone down. To a certain extent hon. Members opposite must accept the responsibility for this because nothing they did in the last few years, and particularly their new instruments about the control of flour in September, 1964, in any way helped the situation. In fact, the situation has got rather worse.
We have to bear in mind that in bread there is a very high quantity of water. A near neighbour of mine is a master baker, a man with some pride in producing a good loaf. He said, "We are now producing a tasteless foam rubber substance which we are compelled to eat as bread." He is a man with pride in his job. But there is no longer competition in that craft.
He emphasises that the old mix for bread was roughly 15 gallons of water to 280 lbs. of flour. With new techniques and new processes we are using today 17 gallons of water for the equivalent amount of flour. It seems to me that this must be about the most expensive wind and water in all history, and yet we are suffering it and we see no desire to change because of a reluctance to try to raise our values and standards. This is why I want to emphasise throughout my speech that not only is price important but so is quality.

Mr. Dan Jones: Would my hon. Friend add what are the profits of the companies about which he is speaking? How have they risen while the quality has gone down and the price has gone up?

Mr. Carter-Jones: The four groups are doing extremely well and are not suffering at all. I thank you for that point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member but he must not thank me.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am sorry for that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was carried away by partial indigestion in waiting to get into the debate.
Let me make another point—and I seem to be making points all the time. A survey was recently made by the Medical Research Council of the amount of water in bread and some surprising figures were produced. I do not know whether you are aware of it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but 40 per cent. of your bread is water. Our dilemma is that the amount of water in bread is going up and up all the while. That is why it would be interesting if the Prices and Incomes Commission, in reviewing this matter, took account not only of price but also of quality.
I promised that I would be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for year after year has been trying to get the Government to improve standards of bread. May I quote his supplementary question following an Answer which he received on 14th November, 1960, when he called it
a steamed concoction of doped flour commonly called bread which is more like steamed cotton wool."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 10.]
It is high time this was changed.
For a while I was a lecturer in a technical college which had a bakery department. I am sure that we could improve the quality of our bread in this country and at the same time, by using new techniques, could considerably reduce the price.
The third factor is milk. I am prepared to pay tribute to the British farmer. Without doubt over the years he has improved the quality and the yield of milk on British farms. This is undoubtedly true. Every piece of research done indicates that it is so. But what we have not experienced is an improvement in the standard of milk going into the homes. Basically for ordinary milk that has been 8·5 per cent. solids-not-fat and about 3 per cent. milk fat. This standard has remained. In my youth the standard of milk going into the home was well above that minimum standard.
I should like the First Secretary to analyse this point: over the years the standard of milk which has gone into the homes has frequently fallen all too near the basic minimum. Somebody is creaming this industry, and the British housewife is the sufferer. I do not say that they are watering it, but I do say that they are taking out the good stuff. This would bear very close investigation. There is plenty of evidence of this, provided that we can collate it and provided that action is taken to acquire this information. The benefits of the improvement in production should be passed on to the ordinary people. Far from the quality of the milk going into the home rising, in my view it has fallen. The House ought to deplore that and to tackle the problem.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member is making a very serious charge against the milk distributing industry that they are either watering or creaming off the milk which is being delivered. Could he give some evidence to substantiate his remarks?

Mr. Carter-Jones: I can supply evidence, but this applies to a highly restricted localised area. In consequence I might be doing harm to that one area. What I ask for is an investigation. This is my main worry. I do not say that water is being added to milk but that some of the quality is being taken out of it and the average quality of milk going into the home is getting all too near to the basic minimum standard. It would be in the public interest if that were further investigated.
I have been far more critical on bread and medicines. I object strongly to the way in which the baking industry is being run today and ordinary standard medicines should be more readily available to the public. My point in regard to milk distribution is that it could well bear investigation.

5.51 p.m.

Dame Edith Pitt: With much of what the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said I find myself in agreement because the general tenor of his argument was that he would like the housewife to obtain better value for the money she spends.

I am afraid I do not agree with his recommendation that those on this side of the House should take indigestion mixtures. I should have thought that his own Government needed a jolly good dose in order to regurgitate the load of broken pledges which must lie heavily on their stomachs.
A large number of people in the country would support the censure Motion on the Order Paper if they were in a position to do so. I hope I may speak for some of them, especially for housewives. Many people voted Socialist in the last General Election because they were misled entirely by the promises on which their votes were bought. It is they who would like to be here today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to the triple pledge given by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. I have looked up some of the comments made by hon. Members who now represent some Birmingham constituencies which they won as marginal seats in the General Election.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in his election address, said on the question of prices:
Every housewife knows that each week her money buys less and less.
I wonder what he dares to say to the housewives of Sparkbrook now. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Joan L. Evans), writing in the Birmingham Mail, said:
The Government's policies …"—
He meant the Conservative Government—
had led to ever-increasing prices.
What on earth does he think the policies of the Labour Government have led to? The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) said in his election address:
A Labour Government means to give the housewife steady prices.
Instead of steady prices we have had a steep rise. What the public were led to expect has not happened.
I tell hon. Members on the Government benches—although they should know this if they have regular contact with their constituencies—that the weekly wage earners in their areas are the most outspoken on this subject of rising prices.


The wives say that something goes up in price every week. The husbands say that their wives are always grumbling that they cannot manage on the money their husbands allow them. These people for whom hon. Members on the Socialist benches have always claimed a prescriptive right to speak, the weekly wage earners, are now saying that they are very disappointed with the Labour Government. I hope that hon. Members opposite are collecting that comment in their constituencies.

Mr. Dan Jones: We are all disturbed about rising prices. No hon. Member is worthy of his position in this House if he is not disturbed about this, but I hope the hon. Lady will remember that in the early part of the year when the 15 per cent. surcharge was applied a number of companies increased their prices, their profits and their dividends. That, more than anything else, has contributed to the unfortunate situation in which we are now. Those people have been appealed to but I am afraid that they have been appealed to in vain. This has been a marked contribution to the unfortunate state we are in at the moment.

Dame Edith Pitt: The hon. Member cannot pin the blame on one action, and that the action of his own party, for a number of Government Measures have brought about increases in prices. It is true that weekly wage earners are probably able to maintain their standard of living. It is very important to think not only of the cost of living but of the standard of living. Perhaps they are able to maintain that standard and many of them can manage because of the benefit of wage increases referred to by my right hon. Friends. What one has to remember today is that wage increases are lagging behind price increases. This is contrary to the pattern which obtained when my party was in power. It seems that we are getting back to the old Socialist pattern again.
Even workers who may be able to maintain their standard of living because they have had increases in pay often make the comment that whereas in years gone by there was a margin and they were able to save a little—figures prove that they were able to save under Conservative Governments—they are now having to

spend more in order to maintain their standard of living. I suggest that the fall in National Savings is a matter of very real and growing concern. That is important, not only in the context of this debate on the cost of living, but in the whole context of our national economy.
I talked at the weekend with a housewife who has two small boys aged 7 and 9. I thought her case was typical. I know her to be a careful, prudent manager. She bottles fruit and she bakes and her husband grows the vegetables. They are a happy family. I asked her what extra money she has had to spend on housekeeping since the General Election. Because she is a good manager and jots things down, she was able to tell me straight away. She had worked out that the extra cost was between 15s. and 20s. a week. I think that is the general pattern throughout the country.
Her main grumble was about the cost of children's clothes. She said that they were as expensive in many cases as clothes for her husband. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is true."] I am glad to hear confirmation of that. I would not charge the present Government with this because it is not a new phenomenon, but I charge them that the main part of the high price of children's clothes is a result of labour charges and not actual cost of materials. So far the Government's incomes policy is still only a matter of fine words.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I make this point after a very careful study of the problem. It is true that the cost of children's clothes may be similar to the cost of clothes for an adult over a period, but that is because there is heavier depreciation of children's clothes through wear and tear. That has to be taken into consideration.

Dame Edith Pitt: I am glad of the confirmation the hon. Member gives. He makes a further point. My point was about initial cost, but he makes a point about durability. We are agreed that the cost of children's clothes is a heavy item in the family budget. It is not only wage earners who are affected by rising prices. They affect all sections of the community. A section less vocal is the younger professional workers. Rising prices hit them especially hard, because they are at the early stages of their


careers. They are just beginning to climb the career structure ladder. They are probably buying a house on mortgage and thus paying heavily. Their rates have been increased. They have certain commitments, because they are expected to maintain certain standards.
The real hardship falls on pensioners and those on fixed incomes. To them a reduction of 1s. in the £ in their purchasing power—that is the figure since the Labour Government took office—means going without something. Although it is true that through State pensions—by this I mean National Insurance pensions—an increase has been given by the Government, part of that increase has already been whittled away by rising prices, and the pensioners are afraid that this pattern will continue. Public service pensioners have had no benefit at all from the present Government, despite the pledges which were given. Already in this debate the Minister has been asked to say whether the pledge given so firmly by the Labour Party when it was in opposition is still valid, because the Service pensioners look to the Government for that reassurance.
The only exception to the sections of the community I have mentioned who are affected by rising prices are the teenagers. They are the ones who seem to have the money nowadays, and they jolly well spend it. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade is no longer here, because I would have liked to ask him to confirm my point. I think he is in a position so to do.
It is a fact that the Index of Retail Prices has risen by 4·4 per cent. since this Government took office. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by giving a shopping list of the various articles which have increased in price. They range from bread to sausages—or are those two so far apart?—and from electricity to bus and rail fares. Housewives always talk to me about the price of meat. What they mean is the price of beef, which is higher than I have ever known it. The price of lamb and mutton is reasonable, though one must qualify "reasonable" by saying that it is relative to one's personal income. Meat is high in price. Good cuts of meat are

almost impossible for those on fixed incomes.
Today people are becoming more choosey. They are pondering more over their spending, because they want to get full value for the money they have. This in turn affects the small shopkeepers, who tell me that business is tightening—no more than that. It affects the small business firms, such as the small repairing garage and similar service traders, because they depend on their customers, who themselves are traders and who have a little less money to spend. It affects the smaller employer.
There are two aspects of this problem. It is not only the question of prices in shops. It is deductions from pay. The workman is interested only in his take-home pay, but the employer has to consider the gross. Increases in taxation and in National Insurance contributions have made it more difficult for employers to keep pace and to reflect this in the take-home pay of their workers. The extra Income Tax and the increased National Insurance charges must go on the price of the commodity. It is particularly difficult for a small firm trying to live in this highly competitive world.
The Government deserve censure on this matter because their own actions have brought about this increase. Higher taxation and higher transport costs affect everything we buy and sell. Higher fuel costs and higher rates drive up prices and account for the sharp rise in the cost of living—I stress "sharp rise". People are worried about the future. They want to know what is likely to happen because of their concern about rising prices. They are, to use the vernacular, "feeling the pinch"—the pinch of Socialism and the price that must be paid for electing a Socialist Government.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Lady has made a fairly serious charge against three of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Ioan L. Evans) and Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden). Will she tell me what impression she gave the electors of Edgbaston about the balance of payments deficit during the election campaign last October?

Dame Edith Pitt: The hon. Gentleman must not sidetrack today's debate. We are talking about rising prices. He is endeavouring to defend three of his hon. Friends who are not even present to listen to the debate. However, I will answer his question, if I may do so within the bounds of order. I certainly told my constituents of the difficult situation the country was in because of the adverse balance of payments. I referred them to the figures which were issued during the course of the election campaign by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The Opposition today are having a field day. I am reminded of an end of term session when everyone is anxious to have a go. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was rather like the overgrown schoolboy, anxious and in a hurry to fall ever himself in what he has to say. The speech of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was rather more moderate, as was the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt). I must confess that I was somewhat nauseated by the fact that both the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the hon. Lady laboured rather heavily on the whole question of pensions and those on fixed incomes. I ask them this question in all sincerity; if they are so keen to help those in receipt of retirement pensions, Service pensioners, and so on, why did not they during the 13 years of Conservative rule badger their own Front Bench until they did something about it?

Dame Edith Pitt: We did.

Mr. Lewis: Evidently not with any success.

Dame Edith Pitt: Five times.

Mr. Lewis: I do not claim any special privilege to speak in this debate. My only association has been with the co-operative movement, which was the workers' champion in days that have passed because it was their only means of saving. We all deplore the rise in the cost of living. When I was employed by British Railways, I was reminded of this almost every week by my wife. On returning from shopping on Fridays she

would say, "Another 1d. on so and so and 2d. on so and so". The increases were persistent. That happened under the Conservative Government.
Today most people associate the cost of living with food. Perhaps our present cost of living index should be looked at again. I agree with the hon. Lady that the average housewife is probably more concerned than the average man about the cost of living. I want to examine the prices of some items of food since 15th October of last year when the Labour Government were elected.
Over the past ten years the official retail price index for all foods has climbed 30 per cent., and in the last four years of Tory rule the increase was 16 per cent. Increases in the price of food since last October are not in excess of the general rise over the past ten years, despite all the moaning and groanings of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The basic commodities in the grocery trade such as sugar, butter, lard, cheese, bacon, tea and eggs, which together represent 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the total grocery trade, show, not an increase but an overall decrease in retail prices.
The details are as follows: sugar a decrease of about 15 per cent., butter a decrease of about 9 per cent., lard a slight increase of 1 per cent., cheese a slight increase of 2 per cent., bacon no change in the price, and likewise with tea. There has been a slight increase of about 2 per cent. in the price of eggs. All these figures average a decrease of 2·6 per cent. Even this figure, I would suggest, is somewhat deceptive since far more sugar is sold than cheese and the decrease in the sugar price is about 15 per cent.
Many price increases during the first few weeks of the Labour Government were obviously motivated by political considerations. I pay my respect and tribute to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on his appeal to business people and manufacturers to hold their prices. Some readily responded but, unfortunately, others chose to raise prices. I saw a circular from a firm which makes drinking straws for children. This was issued during the first weeks of the Labour Government. There was an insinuation in it against the Government, because it accused them of having


manipulated a financial crisis with the result that the firm had had to increase the price of drinking straws. In spite of the spate of increases, which we readily admit has occurred, in some instances prices have settled down and in some cases there have been decreases.
There has been an intensification of competition in the grocery trade, which I welcome. It has meant that many retailers have not passed increases on to their customers and some firms have co-operated in the appeals made to them. Therefore, I suppose that it can be said that increased competition means that the wise shopper can buy her groceries much more cheaply now than she could before October 1964. Coupled with this, a great many people have had wage increases, with which we all agree, and these increases are far in excess of the small increase in the cost-of-living.

Mr. Anthony Berry: rose—

Mr. Lewis: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member must listen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have looked up some of the Conservative Party manifestoes. In 1951 the party said that,
The greatest national misfortune which we now endure is the ever-falling value of our money".
The manifesto added that the Tories would control the cost of living. In 1955 the Tories said:
We accept the obligation to continue to work for more stable prices.
In 1959 they claimed,
We have now stabilised the cost of living.
When it came to October, 1964 they said:
No country has succeeded in keeping postwar prices completely steady.
During the period from October, 1951, when the Tories came to power, until October 1964 the value of the £ shrank to about 13s. 4d. What did the Tories do? Under the Tories the National Health Service contributions were increased on three occasions, petrol prices were increased on four occasions, and tobacco and cigarette prices were increased on five occasions. Mortgage interest rates were increased variously during the 13 years, and the average rate poundage in England and Wales increased almost yearly under Tory

administration. In addition, Post Office charges, telephones and stamps were increased and the cost of the combined television and radio licence was raised. In view of the past record of the Tories, their present image appears to be laughing through and spitting at their creed.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) said that the price of sugar in the shops had dropped. This is certainly true, but it is not due in any way to action by the present Government. It is because international commodity prices have generally collapsed in recent months. It is particularly disturbing that the cost of living in this country should have skyrocketed at a time when the cost of basic commodities which we buy overseas is plummeting down and one would expect to see some savings.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Rubbish.

Mr. Goodhart: The hon. and learned Gentleman says "Rubbish", but if he will look at the list of commodity prices published regularly on the back pages of the Economist he will see the statistics set forth quite clearly to show that there has been a substantial drop in international commodity prices.

Mr. MacDermot: Is the hon. Member suggesting that prices of imported food have gone down recently?

Mr. Goodhart: I am suggesting that the price of sugar and of cocoa, to both of which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred specifically, have collapsed on the international market. The hon. Member for Carlisle said that the Conservative Party had no right to pose as the champion of the consumer because of its past record. In this Parliament we have had a great many narrow Divisions. They were very rare in the last Session. I remember the narrowest Division during the whole period of the last Parliament. It took place in Committee on the then Resale Prices Bill, on an Amendment which affected the livelihood of tens of thousands of chemists, a substantial, worthy and most deserving pressure group. The arguments in favour of exempting chemists from the effect of the Resale Prices Bill were very powerful, and I


admit that during the debate I had considerable qualms on the subject myself. But, when we came to a Division, the Amendment was rejected by the Conservative Party, albeit with a majority of one.
That one vote, and scores of others during our proceedings, entitle the Conservative Party to say that it is prepared to stand up for the consumer despite pressure groups and despite all the weighty arguments which important manufacturing and retail interests may bring to bear. I think that that vote on that evening had some effect on another vote which took place yesterday not so far from this Chamber. Although hon. Members opposite may not be prepared to recognise it, I have no doubt whatever that the Press and the public as a whole appreciate that every important price cut which has been made since the election has been due not to any action of the present Government but to the operation of the Resale Price Maintenance Act.
Sometimes, this Government have stepped in immediately to offset the effect of price cuts brought about by increased competition. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) spoke about milk. I can remember what happened in regard to a somewhat stronger drink. The abandoning of resale price maintenance by the Distillers Company led to an immediate cut, due to the increase in competition, in the price of spirits, but within days the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary stepped in and removed the benefit of these price cuts by raising the duty.
Virtually every action of this Government has tended to force up prices. We have had the increases in taxation. We have had the import surcharge, to which the hon. Member for Eccles referred, which not only puts up prices directly but shields this country's industry from competition. We have had the price increases in the nationalised industries which were set forth in HANSARD only last Thursday, and we know that there are many more to come because, since the beginning of this year, there have been more than 20 wage increases averaging more than 3½ per cent within the nationalised industries.
To offset all this, what have the Government done? They have set up the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I admit that, at the time, I gave this a pretty dusty welcome, and I wrote of the proposed Review Commission:
Indeed this whole exercise seems likely to become as ludicrously ineffective as the enormous effort which the American State Department devoted in the 1920s to persuading European countries to sign treaties renouncing the use of force.
But, since the publication of the first Report by this body, presided over by an ex-colleague from these benches, I have begun to think that there may be considerable merit in it. It is unlikely directly to affect the course of prices in the next few months. Perhaps, as so often happens, the best comment on the net result of it was made by Osbert Lancaster when, in one of his cartoons, he showed his usual gloomy idea of an hon. Member opposite talking to Maudie Littlehampton after the publication of this Report and saying, "You see, thanks to George Brown, prices will now go up separately instead of all together".
Nevertheless, I think that this Report is of considerable value. It sets forth in detail some of the restrictive practices that could well be removed, with beneficial effect on prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has had a bit of a go on this subject at Question Time, and a very dusty answer he has had from the Government Front Bench. The Board set forth in some detail also certain of the effects of increased Government taxation on road haulage rates as a whole. But what I welcome above all is the fact that this Report—I hope that the same will be true of subsequent reports—is a paean of praise in favour of competition. Referring to the road haulage industry, it says:
In those sections of this variegated industry where competition is keen, the recommended increase will be passed on only in part, but in those sections where competition is not so keen it may be passed on in whole.
It seems to me that the road haulage industry today affords a fair test of the Government's intention. Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would, undoubtedly, like to see the whole of the road haulage industry nationalised, but then there would be small chance, if any at all, of the consumer shopping


around for lower rates, as the Board recommended he should. The users of road haulage services have been told that they ought to refuse to pay the increases, but if my constitutents refused to pay the increased charges recently introduced by the electricity board, they would jolly soon find themselves without electricity and in court.
One does not necessarily have to consider the views of those who are thinking in terms of complete nationalisation. We have now before us the Geddes Report on the licensing of road haulage which recommends greatly increased competition. If the Government really believed in competition, there would be a good chance of action being taken on this Report. But we all know perfectly well that there is no chance whatever of the Government taking any action.
So I am delighted that the Prices Board has come out so firmly in favour of competition, because I am convinced that this is the only way in which prices can be kept down. I am afraid that this lesson will never be learnt by hon. Members opposite, and that is one of the main reasons why they face another 13 years in opposition.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: I confess that throughout this debate I have experienced a sense of unreality, which has not been entirely absent on other occasions but seems to have been particularly marked today. It seems to have been even more of a "phoney war" than usual, even the two right hon. Gentlemen who opened the debate hardly seeming to believe in everything they were saying, and both typifying this atmosphere by forgetting to move the Motion and the Amendment.
I believe that in their choice of subject for debate the Opposition have tried to present the House and the country with a snapshot of crisis, a limited picture, trying to present it as a general true panorama of the economy as a whole. This will be, and has been, exposed for the sham that it is. We cannot allow the Opposition to isolate one aspect of our economic affairs and concentrate attention on it as they seem to do. They seem to be seeking to distort the facts by ignoring so many of them. We cannot allow them to get away with this. We must try to

broaden our view of the picture a little and ascertain where the real responsibility lies.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Surely after the Chancellor's statement yesterday, the gravest that I have heard in the House for 20 years, the hon. Gentleman must agree that we are facing a real crisis.

Mr. Tinn: That is precisely the point that I was about to make. I believe that the Opposition stand exposed as having been in the position of the head of a household faced with major illness who has refused to call in the doctor because he did not wish to pay the bill. That was what they did in election year. The charge against them is that in the year when the nation was facing an accumulated crisis of greater magnitude than it has ever faced before, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was sitting tight and doing nothing but cover over the facts, and the recently deposed Leader of the Opposition was assuring us that the economy had never been so healthy. The responsibility is inescapably that of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that must be brought home to them time and time again.
Now that the country has a Government who are tackling problems, we find the Opposition refusing to take their medicine. They are refusing to support the Government in their unpopular but essential decisions which are made all the more drastic and urgent by the failure of the Opposition to take them in time. We can contrast the stage-managed elections of the last 13 years with the purposeful decisions and actions of the present Government. The Government might well have been deterred from many of these urgent and inevitably unpopular decisions by the size of their majority. In spite of their majority, the Conservative Party could not face up to these decisions in an election year. The present Government, with their pitifully small majority, have thrust aside party and electoral considerations and deliberately gone ahead with the course of action which they believe to be necessary for the public good, having sufficient confidence that the British people will approve of it when an election comes. We can contrast this with the cynical neglect by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We on this side of the House have no


need whatever to apologise for what the Labour Government have done.
We can also contrast the actions of the Labour Government in this year of crisis of unprecedented magniture with the actions of previous Chancellors in much less serious situations. The Government have taken—we are fully conscious of this—unpopular but necessary decisions. But look at the other things we have done. Could anyone have imagined that right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the middle of their successive credit squeezes would have handed out one of the largest increases in pensions ever? Could one have envisaged that the first act of a Conservative Government after an election would have been to bring in a Bill to give security of tenure to people who have been harassed by landlords and all the evils of Rachmanism? Could we have expected right hon. Gentlemen opposite at such a time of economic emergency to have produced the Rent Bill, which will bring relief to thousands of people? Could we have expected right hon. Gentlemen to produce in such circumstances a Redundancy Payments Bill which contrasts so effectively with the golden handshakes of the Tory years and goes some way at least to give security and justice to the ordinary worker and salary earner?
Nothing has been more bogus than the crocodile tears which have been shed by hon. Members opposite on behalf of public service pensioners. This has come from the Conservative Party which had so much time in the past to do something about that problem. How much of our policy did they expect us to get through in the first eight or nine months? Let us look at a little more of what we have done. We gave the pensioners, as I said, the largest increase ever, 100 per cent. of what their own association demanded. So far as I know, no trade union leader has ever succeeded in obtaining so much.
We gave the largest increase ever in industrial injuries benefits. We tackled the vicious earnings rule which reduced the incentives of widows to earn and which, in effect, dipped into the widow's mite for the national Exchequer. That vicious and much criticised rule has been abolished. The 10s. pension for widows has been trebled. All these are emergency measures in an attempt to restore the position

of this hard-hit section of the community while the Government prepare their major Measures of social insurance. In grappling with the long-term as well as the short-term economic problems, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State has gone ahead with his plans, despite the constant and carping criticism from the benches opposite. He has kept well up to schedule at each stage. Yet on each occasion hon. Members opposite have said that he will never get over the next hurdle. Nevertheless, he has moved on and has set up machinery which is in strong contrast with the toothless tools of the last Government. He has secured agreement on objectives and the first cases have been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, which has produced its first reports. The first results are already apparent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Surely the reaction of the road hauliers gives hope that private industrialists are not as blind in their prejudice as some hon. Members opposite, who simply seek party profit from the country's difficulties.
The Government will continue to govern purposefully and courageously. When the present crisis has been surmounted, they will move on to the truly constructive phase when they will begin to carry out the rest of the programme on which they were elected. Then, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will produce her income guarantee scheme and the other major insurance Measures which are in preparation.
When we are free from the difficulties that we on this side of the House inherited from the party opposite, we shall be able to honour our pledge to the house buyers and house builders on land prices, interest rates and rents. We shall be able to do something about the too-long neglected problem of leasehold reform, and thereby alter the situation in which people see their security, their hard work and their money vanishing on the expiry of a lease.
We have nothing to apologise for. The Government will govern vigorously and effectively and when the time come to return for the verdict of the people we shall be able to do so with confidence and success.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn)


encroached a little on tomorrow's subject. He will therefore understand if I do not follow him now, except to remark that I think that this week's business has been rather badly arranged by the usual channels because it was almost inevitable that there would be some overlapping between the subjects discussed today, tomorrow and next Monday.
I do not think that the House is at its best when discussing matters of this kind. People outside who are not familiar with the way the House works often say that it is at its best on general subjects and broad matters of principle. I wonder how many of them have been present to listen to a Supply day debate.
So far the debate has been rather sterile. It has been limited to the Government saying that they cannot do certain things because they inherited a difficult situation from the Opposition and to the Opposition saying that the Government should have done certain things during their first eight months of office.
I was disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He did not seem up to his usual form. He spoke mainly in Daily Sketch headlines, finishing up in a thunderous way with "crash, bash" in describing how the Government had destroyed so many things erected by the Tory Party. A little euphoria seems to have come over the Tory Party as a result of its solution of the leadership difficulties which have been plaguing it. I was reminded of the old song,
I was walking along, minding my business
When out of an orange-coloured sky
Crash, bash, alakazam
Wonderful you came by.
That seems to be the attitude of the Tory Party at the moment and I expect that we shall be seeing more of it in the rest of today's debate and tomorrow and on Monday.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) had nothing constructive to say. The depressing thing about the country's situation is that the Opposition have only destructive opinions to offer about the measures taken by the Government, particularly those announced by the Chancellor yesterday. The Opposition cannot put forward any alternative policies that we can take seriously.
In saying that, I except the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I agree with almost every word he said. I believe that the Government must take far greater measures than they have so far taken to stimulate competition if price rises are to be controlled. But I see that I have fallen to some extent into the trap of departing from today's subject, just as other hon. Members have done.
The President of the Board of Trade raised, in relation to the Chancellor's statement yesterday, the question of areas of high unemployment. These are to be exempted from the restrictions, according to the Chancellor. The terms "development districts" and "areas of high unemployment" were used. The right hon. Gentleman must have in mind some other areas besides development districts. What are the criteria? Would the Chancellor consider extending these areas to cover places which are losing population and which the Government, when in opposition, said should be included within the ambit of "development districts".
This is the first time during the present Session that we have had a debate on public service and Armed Forces pensions, apart from the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden). I do not think that we would have had it even today had it not been for the insistence of my right hon. and hon. Friends that a debate on the subject should take place. We Liberals do not arrange Supply day debates. We are not part of the "usual channels". But I want to make it clear not only to the House, but to the public service and Armed Forces pensioners, that we have been pressing for such a debate for many months and my only dispute now is that the subject should be coupled with the subject of the cost of living.
We should have taken these two subjects separately. A debate on public service and Armed Forces pensions could easily have taken the whole of the day. I am certain that enough hon. Members would have wished to speak on that topic to have made a full day's debate. We Liberals have always made clear our policy on public service and Armed Forces pensions. We reiterated it


before the last election at a Press conference we held on 7th September, at which I was present.
We said then that our policy was based on the twin principles of parity and dynamism. The principle of parity is that all public servants should receive the same pension for the same service, regardless of the date of service and the date of retirement, and the principle of dynamism is that pensions should be upgraded in line with current salaries of public servants.
At that time, I believed that if the Labour Party were successful in the election, it would adopt these policies. Although it was not committed to these twin principles by its manifesto, it certainly gave the impression in public utterances before the election that it would introduce these principles as soon as possible. I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), as well as many public servants, certainly had that impression.
I need not run through all the statements which gave that impression, since the hon. Member for Kemptown reminded us of them only the other night, but I should like to reiterate what the Prime Minister said at his Press conference and which the hon. Member for Kemptown quoted. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Pensions will be reviewed so that they will keep their full purchasing power instead of being eroded as they have been in recent years.
He did not say that after eight months the President of the Board of Trade would say that the Government would wait until they had carried out a review to see whether those promises made by the Prime Minister during the election would be implemented. We should have an answer to that this evening.
When answering the Adjournment debate on 14th July, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy had very little to say, but what he said rather discouraged those who would like these changes to be introduced in the near future. He pointed out that the immediate cost of parity for the Armed Forces pensioners would be about £25 million and that the cost of parity for the public service as a whole would be more than £100 million. He admitted that it could

be introduced in stages, but he said the national economy would soon feel the weight of the ultimate commitment which could amount to as much as £1,000 million in the long term if applied to the private sector as well.
That is all very well, but as we are speaking about prices and their effect on public service and Armed Forces pensioners, I emphasise that this large group of people have suffered more than any other from rising prices which we would all like to be controlled and which the Government's prices and incomes policy is supposed to be controlling. In the little pamphlet "Changing Britain" issued by the Department of Economic Affairs in June, we read these words:
Rising prices have bad social effects, and can have bad economic effects. Socially they inflict injustice on people living on fixed incomes and on a number of other groups in the community, although pensions increases and other adjustments can help to offset the effects of inflation for some people.
The Tories have at least been honest about this and have never adopted the principle of parity as part of their policy, but they have said that they will attempt to cope by introducing pensions increases legislation from time to time as and when such increases can be afforded. As far as I know, that is still their policy.
But the Labour Party is committed to the principle of parity as a means of curing this evil to which they themselves drew attention in the D.E.A. booklet which I have just quoted. The Labour Party must be aware of the present position of Armed Forces and Civil Service pensioners. For example, civil servants who have retired since May, 1961, have had no increase in their pensions, while over the period May, 1961, to May, 1965, the Ministry of Labour Wages Index has moved from 124·4 to 145 and the Retail Prices Index has risen by more than 12 per cent.
It is not about those who have retired most recently that I complain most. As the House knows, it is the public servants and the officers and other ranks who retired long ago who have suffered most from the effects of inflation. That is why the most recent Pensions (Increase) Acts have given them larger increases compared with those who retired more recently. But the substantial fact


still remains that all Civil Service pensions up to as recently as April, 1957, are still far below the level of currently dated pensions. Much the same is true of Armed Forces pensions. These latter pensioners have the additional disadvantage that most of them have retired at a much earlier age than civil servants and have therefore suffered from the effects of inflation for many years longer. I am reliably informed that more than 45 per cent. of retired officers retired on rates fixed in 1945, or before the war. Although I do not have the figures for other ranks, I believe that the percentage is very similar.
The pensions increase system which the Tories had and which has not been changed by the Labour Party has remained practically unchanged for the 45 years since it was introduced and it has resulted in all these pensioners having constantly to lower their standards of living, so that those who have been retired longest have received less on which to live when old and least able to help themselves.
I know that it may be said that the Labour Government increased the retirement pension and that many of these pensioners are receiving that increase, but that is not true of all of them, for many older officers and civil servants did not qualify for the retirement pension. They are in the group which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) tried to help by his Bill. I am sorry that he did not succeed.
In view of the grave situation which the country faces, I appreciate that we cannot expect the Government to introduce parity now, or even in the very near future, but, in view of their promises at the election, as an absolute minimum I would expect them to make a gesture now towards these pensioners and to commit themselves in the House of Commons to the ultimate fulfilment of their promises on the hustings last October.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that in our manifesto at least we assured a guaranteed income for everyone? When the economic circumstances are desirable, that will be done.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman knows that the guaranteed incomes scheme has been put off into the indefinite future by yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Monslow: Temporarily.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know how temporary it is. At least it will not happen in the next session, according to the Chancellor's announcement. What I am about to ask the Government for is something much more short term than the introduction of these changes, promised at the election, some time in the session after next.
As an absolute minimum, the pensions of those who retired before 1st January, 1956, should be brought up to the levels applicable at that date. The reason I mention 1st January, 1956, is that I have figures showing what the cost of that proposal would be, and it is modest enough in all conscience as a gesture towards the implementation of these promises. The cost is a sum which we can afford, even in our present economic difficulties.
These figures were given to me by the Financial Secretary in an answer to a Question on 5th February, 1955. For retired Servicemen the cost would be about £5 million a year. Although he could not calculate the figures for the rest of the public service, he estimates that it would be about £2 million a year in addition to this. Altogether we are talking about a sum of £7 million as a first step towards honouring this promise made at the time of the election.
Secondly, I should like the Government to give me a definite commitment to the principles of parity and dynamism which they espoused at the time of the election, and to give at least a provisional time-scale in which these promises would be carried into effect. No one is going to hold them to within a few months, one way or another. I should have thought that these promises could be carried out over a period of five years, with this initial step of raising pensions to the level pertaining on 1st January, 1956. Unless we get these promises we must, regretfully, say that they have broken the promise which they gave to the pensioners during the election, and that therefore we shall have to vote against them this evening.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has jumped from twig to twig with the skill of an elephant. First of all he advocated the claims of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service pensioners, then he agreed that parity was impossible at the present time. He went on to a fanciful scheme, entirely of his own, and finished up by asking the Government to give certain assurances, which he knows the Government cannot give, and would be very foolish if they tried to do so.

Mr. Lubbock: The Government gave them in October. Why should they not give them in the House?

Mr. Winterbottom: They can give a general assurance in terms of an intention, providing that the kitty will allow them to pay it, and providing that certain other conditions also, of a financial and economic character, have been satisfied. When the hon. Member says that this debate has a certain falseness about it, because it links the cost of living to the question of pensions for the Civil Service and the Armed Forces, he is perfectly right. He could have gone further and made another division. There could have been a division between those who have worked in the Civil Service and those who have been in the Armed Forces, because there may be a stronger case for parity for the Armed Forces than for the Civil Servants.
This Notice of Motion, put down by the Conservative Party, includes other people as well as the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. We have also to deal with those on fixed incomes. When the hon. Member talks about asking for the intentions of the Government in regard to the Civil Service pension he has to remember that the increased contributions, or the increased cost of that increased pension, may come out of those people on fixed incomes who have to pay the increased cost but who can get no extra benefits themselves. This is one of the points which has to be considered in assessing the whole situation. To a certain extent the whole of this debate can be bedevilled by recriminations. On both sides of the House we can fight the battle of the election all over again. We can

say what he said and what other people said, and forget the very simple but basic facts of the economic situation which we have to face today.
I am not going to start apportioning blame anywhere at the moment, though I might have second thoughts later on.

Sir C. Osborne: They are not always best.

Mr. Winterbottom: I know that. At the moment I am not starting to apportion blame. What I am saying is that, whether we like it or not, this country is still in a serious economic plight. A balance of payments problem, which started during the lifetime of the previous Government—and I am not trying to blame them for that at the moment—had the characteristic about it that as it went on it grew in intensity until, when a change of Government came about, the rate of deficit was running at over £1,000 million per year. Quite frankly no one knowing that economic situation, knowing that a new Government had taken over the business of this country, and knowing that the Government have to face this serious economic situation and the problems arising from it could honestly say that the Notice of Motion on the Order Paper had not been put down with deliberate political intent.
It is not in order to benefit the Civil Service pensioner, or the Armed Forces pensioner, or the person on a fixed income. It is in order to gain political capital for the Conservative Party, and it is to ignore deliberately an economic situation for which I am not blaming the Conservatives, although I will say that they were a part of it. Just as a balance of payments situation grows in intensity when it is ignored by a Government, so a policy of prices grows in intensity as the prices advance. There are some manufacturers and some distributors in this country who can be condemned for taking advantage of the Government having to enforce certain measures which have caused increased overheads. Some people have taken more out of the customer than those increased overheads warranted.
I will give an illustration. A few weeks ago my wife told me on the telephone that she was going to send a birthday card to a friend of ours. That birthday


card, which originally cost less than 2s., had gone up 8d. The reason for that increase of 8d. was attributed to the 6d. extra charged on petrol. There have been many cases like that. The Government sometimes must face not only the serious economic situation which they have inherited, but those people who do not accept the spirit of the voluntary method and take advantage for themselves. Despite that, there are some increases which are natural, and those increases which are percentage increases, because of the rise in prices, show heavily in the cost of living.
This applies to the meat trade. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt)—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: She is not here now.

Mr. Winterbottom: I know, but I will not criticise her for that. She mentioned the price of meat, and the price of the best cuts of meat. She did not know that the best cuts of meat do not amount to much in terms of the weight of the carcase of a bullock or heifer and that the price being charged today for the best cuts of meat is not the average price for the meat of the whole carcase. Nevertheless, the price of meat has advanced more than the price of any other food commodity. Much of this is due not to the fact that there has been extraordinary overcharging but because so many people in meat distribution have to have a percentage on the cut that the increased percentage on the cut amounts to a great deal at the end of the transaction.

Mr. Peter Mills: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me how much the price of lamb, pork and poultry meat has increased in the last year? I think he will find that the price is exactly the same as last year.

Mr. Winterbottom: I was speaking only of beef. I agree that the price of lamb and pork has been comparatively stable. I should have referred to beef, and I apologise for not doing so.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I think my hon. Friend will find that the rise in the price of beef has been going on for the last three years.

Mr. Winterbottom: Yes. My point is that when percentage increases are spread over so many factors, as is the case in beef distribution, they amount to a tremendous sum of money in the final calculation.
This is one of the things which the Government will have to face. This is the crux of the situation. The Government face a serious economic situation. One way in which the country can recover is by the implementation of an effective policy based on production and productivity, based on the relativity of that production and productivity to wage values, based on a conception of the profit motive which is related to those wage values and based on price stabilisation. In one of my first speeches in the House of Commons I said that any Goverment, whatever their colour, outlook or policy abroad, which ignored the question of prices in this country would commit political suicide. Price stabilisation is not only a good thing for a political party but the only fundamental basis for the recovery of Britain; and that matters to me as much as it does to any hon. Members opposite.
When I first worked in a shop, a new young branch manager came to me and said, "I have taken over this shop. It is in a bad condition. The overheads amount to far more than the gross profits." After a fortnight, he was asked, "Has the shop recovered? Are we making a profit yet?" This is the situation of this country, and it is the situation which the Government must face.
In my first speech in the House after the Government took office I said, to the taunts of Members opposite, would to God the Prime Minister, fully realising the economic situation of this country and all its implications, had said, even though the election had taken place only two months previously, that the situation was so bad and the Government could not manage with their narrow majority to carry through the policy which they wanted to implement, and will implement, that we should go to the country and tell the people the true situation and ask them to give us greater representation in the House to enable us to carry through our programme. I wish that that had happened. We should have faced the issue then; and the people would have faced the issue then.
The alternative is not the voluntary "go as you please and not please as you go" type of system in which manufacturers, behind the pretence of advances which they said had to be made in the interests of the economy, increased prices abnormally, in which there was no relationship between the margins in distribution and good common sense, and in which there was not in reality a correct relationship between various aspects of distribution and the productive effort of the country. Those who have tabled the Motion, who know the economic situation of this country—

Mr. Monslow: Profess to know.

Mr. Winterbottom: —realise that what I am saying is true and is the only real way out of our economic difficulties. The alternative is to go back to the chaotic type of Toryism that we had in the last century, the laissez faire of Liberalism. If we go back to the laissez faire situation of Liberalism in which every man's hand is turned against his fellow man and the devil takes the hindmost, this country will lose in competition with other countries.
Whether we like it or not, we must have a planned economy which relates to margins between productive effort and distributive effort and between one job and another job and which establishes a price system which starts from stability and allows increases according to the increase in the productive effort. The creation of this system has been bedevilled because so many people would not play ball. This is the only system which can get us out of the difficulty of constantly advancing prices followed by applications for wage increases.
The Government who stabilise prices so that every advance in wages that takes place after that is an advance in real wages are doing a great service to the country and a great service to the population. Until we reach that position, all these resolutions and Motions on the Order Paper are idle and futile and are a waste of time both to Britain and to the people.

7.21 p.m.

Sir Alexander Spearman: I can well understand the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) wishing that there had been a General Election when the

country had only had two months' experience of the present Government.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade attributed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) responsibility for the present situation because he had not sufficiently cut back consumer spending. That is an attack which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite make very often. It seems to be their only method of defence. But I remind them of the old saying that people in glass houses should not throw stones, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that in his speech on 16th April last year he roundly condemned my right hon. Friend for raising consumer taxes. In an earlier debate, he complained that the Budget was too timid, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that the Budget was too cautious, and the Prime Minister made it clear in both Budget debates that he agreed with his right hon. Friends.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in a very vigorous speech, told us today of the very specific pledges that right hon. Gentlemen opposite made about what a Labour Government would do to keep the cost of living stable. They made some very reckless promises. Were these the promises of ruthless men prepared to buy votes at any price or, as I would like to think because it is the lesser crime, were they the promises of foolish men who were ignorant of how the economy works? I am quite sure that if the late Hugh Gaitskell had been Prime Minister, it would not have happened. No one could accuse Gaitskell of a lack of integrity. No one could accuse him of not knowing how the economy worked.
May I quote two sentences from a speech that he made a lone time ago, at a time when these matters, even on this side, were not quite so clearly realised as they are today? He said this in 1951:
If incomes go up more than production goes up, then prices will rise. The truth is as simple as that.
What the country wants to know is why the Government have failed. Is it due to an incompetent Cabinet unable to understand the economy, or is it due to a divided Cabinet who cannot agree? It is said that the Prime Minister's cure is


gimmicks. It is said the Chancellor's remedy is to finance expansion by borrowing and that the First Secretary's is going to depend entirely on physical controls, which is a very ingenuous belief.
The Prime Minister, who is so powerful with words and so singlarly ineffective in action, seems to be unable to control the conflicting views of his Cabinet. So we get the worst of all worlds. The remarkable reversals of policy that we have had time and time again, with the Chancellor saying one thing at the beginning of a month and the opposite at the end of the month, seem to bear out the view that the Prime Minister has not got control of his Cabinet.
The rise in the cost of living has been considerable. However, the serious factor—and my right hon. Friend touched on this—is not what has taken place but what is going to take place. All experience shows that when output is rising, efficient employers can absorb additional costs by increasing their turnover. But when they reach the state, as we have reached now, where there is no slack left in the economy, increases in output can only come from technological improvements which we all know, however much they are speeded up, are a slow process. That is when we get a sharp rise in prices, and that is what we have to face now.
I believe that the Government's objective should be to do everything that they can to promote growth and, at the same time, to slow down increases in spending so as to get the two in balance. Governments can facilitate but not initiate growth. They have only a partial responsibility. However, for spending they have complete responsibility. I do not believe that one can stop increases in earnings by exhortation. I do not believe one can do it by pressure on the trade unions. These rises do not occur because of trade union pressures at all.
Look at domestic wages. They have risen as much as any, and there is no trade unionism there. These rises take place because, if there is excess demand, employers are competing for labour and, when they are competing for labour and when demand is so great, they can afford to pay and will pay willingly higher wages in order to get that labour. The rise in

wages generates the demand which makes it possible. Therefore it is the prime duty—the first, I believe of all economic duties of the Government—to regulate demand. In this, the Government have utterly failed. Spending is increasing and savings are declining. The Government and the whole country should take very seriously the effects on savings of the Chancellor's measures in his Budget and the Government's measures in general, and I should like again to quote one sentence from Gaitskell. He said:
And besides there really does come a point when, if the process goes on swiftly enough, people begin to lose confidence in the value of money, saving is regarded as a useless habit and the rate of spending increases. Such general inflation has occurred more than once in European countries. It could happen here.
The Government have increased their spending considerably, and they have increased it in a way that has had a particularly severe effect on spending. For example, there has been the abolition of prescription charges. I expect all that money was spent. If the Government increase their expenditure, economically that is a perfectly sound thing to do, providing they offset it by cutting back consumer spending.
Here I may not be in complete agreement with all my hon. Friends, but I believe that the effect on prices of raising indirect taxes is grossly exaggerated. It has a certain effect, of course, but unless it causes the Government to spend more because of the revenue from those taxes, the effect is very limited.
But a rise in earnings means a further rise in demand. That means a further rise in earnings, and so you get the vicious spiral going on and on. That is what I am sure Hugh Gaitskell was speaking about when he talked about the possibility of disastrous inflation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer pays altogether too much attention to trying to match up revenue with expenditure, and much too little attention to trying to match up total demand with total resources. I will give one example of what I mean. In a very interesting article by a member of the Treasury in the National Institute's May Bulletin, Table 9 showed that if insurance benefits were increased by £300 million and contributions were increased by £300 million, there would be no cost to the Treasury at all. In the second year, however, the


increase on demand, which is what matters, would be no less than £233 million.
Taxes that come out of savings serve no economic purpose. Taxes that take a long time to operate are entirely irrelevant to the present situation. My right hon. Friend the member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to an interesting article, which I commend to the House, by Professor Paish in the Irish Banking Review of June this year. In that article, Professor Paish compares some of the taxes which we have had to applying a brake on a motor car when going downhill, but the brake does not operate until the car is halfway up the next hill, when the driver should be using, not the brake, but the accelerator. On checking spending, the Government have failed. On encouraging industrial investment, I believe that they will fail. The uncertainties of the Budget plus the credit squeeze will, I believe, bring about a sharp decline in industrial investment next year which will spark off a general recession.
It is extraordinary when one remembers how, throughout the term of office of the Conservative Government, the Labour Party attacked us again and again for the credit squeeze. Now, they are operating something far more massive than anything that was contemplated in the last 14 years. I wonder whether they have really thought this out.
If there is one thing about which the country as a whole is worried, it is the inconsistency of the actions of the Labour Government. I should like to remind hon. Members what was said on 10th November last year by no less a person than the Leader of the House, a most respected Minister. He said that if the Conservatives had won the election,
we should have been going in for a Bank Rate increase, with a credit squeeze and the whole mixture as before. That is precisely what would have happened."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 965.]
It is precisely what did happen. I believe that the new plans about which we heard yesterday are a belated—perhaps a disastrously belated—recognition of the limitations of the expenditure the country can afford. Why did not the Government think of all this before?
I always regard it as presumptuous for a back bencher to quote his own speeches, and I have never done it before,

but to show that I am not just being wise after the event I should like the indulgence of hon. Members to quote just two sentences from speeches which I have made during the past year. On 12th November last, I said:
I am convinced that if the brakes are not put on now they will have to be put on later, and the longer the delay the more drastic the measures will have to be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 1271.]

Mr. Monslow: How does the hon. Member reconcile what he is saying with the fact that by their election promises the party to which he belongs would have committed us to an additional £650 million expenditure?

Sir A. Spearman: After the Conservative Government came to power in 1951, the rate of productivity went up very satisfactorily from 2 per cent. to about 3½ per cent. That enabled a careful, well-managed Government to spend more than their predecessors had been spending. However, as I have said before in this House, the Conservative Government had spent right up to the hilt and we cannot afford the extra expenditure of the present Government.
On 10th May this year, I said:
I believe that this year the increase in spending by public authorities and by consumers … will considerably exceed the increase in production. Therefore, this year we are going to have a consumption inflation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 139.]
If I, limited in mind and body, could foresee these things, why could not those who are expected to have the qualities of Cabinet Ministers foresee them?
I believe that now the Government should cut consumption. Had they been able to cut their own expenditure, that might not be necessary. Having failed to do it, however, they should cut consumption quickly and severely, simultaneously taking steps to promote an expansion of industrial investment that will take several months to operate. They should start by modifying the credit squeeze in order to give encouragement to industrial investment.
It is unfortunate that so often what is politically desirable is economically disastrous, and vice versa. To do things that are unpopular requires courage. No one who knows my right hon. Friend the


Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) will doubt his courage and determination. Indeed, towards the end of the last Parliament some of my hon. Friends thought that he was a little too courageous in his admirable action on resale prices. The sooner that the Prime Minister gives the country the opportunity for my right hon. Friend to take his place, the sooner shall we have a Government of courage and determination and a Government who will consider in advance the economic consequences of their actions.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I wish to preface my remarks by referring to the speech of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He is a widely respected Member of the House, especially among hon. Members with much less experience of Parliamentary proceedings than himself. Many hon. Members must, however, have been disquieted to find that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the difficulties of public service pensioners were tinged with a certain measure of humbug. I should have thought that all hon. Members who have considered the effects of rising costs upon those who have to live on fixed incomes are equally concerned about the problem of the public service pensioner, and particularly those public service pensioners who, in saddening circumstances, for example, by the oncoming of a serious illness, have been obliged to retire prematurely.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that a period of three years and five months elapsed between the operative dates of the two Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1959 and 1962. The present Government have been in power for nine months. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will, I am sure, agree that that is not a period within which one could expect every pledge to have been met. I recall, because I was here at 3.30 a.m., when my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) raised the subject of Armed Service pensioners two or three weeks ago. I hope that both sides of the House will adopt less of a tactical approach to the problem of public service pensioners, because I am certain that there is a wide measure of

agreement that something ought to be done as soon as possible to improve their position.

Mr. Turton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten what I said. I said that I was not complaining that the Government were slow in introducing this measure. I said that I was disturbed by the statement by the President of the Board of Trade that he was still reviewing the matter when the party opposite and the majority of back benchers of my party in the last Parliament had demanded a change to parity of pensions. I asked that whoever wound up the debate should make it clear that the Government stood by their pledge for parity of pensions.

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend spoke of a review, but he also said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who would wind up the debate, would return to the question of public service pensioners, and one of my hon. Friends has expressed his concern about the need for a definitive statement of the position. I hope that no other right hon. or hon. Member who takes part in this debate will attempt to make what I think people outside will regard as unworthy party capital out of the plight of public service pensioners. I have worked in the public service for a number of years, and I appreciate as much as anyone does the difficult cases that arise.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) also referred in his speech to a recent letter from Sir Roy Harrod to The Times, but the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to that part of Sir Roy's letter which suggested that for a period of time there should be control of wages, salaries and dividends. I think I am entitled to ask hon. Members opposite whether they share Sir Roy Harrod's view that there should be control of wages, salaries and dividends. For my part, I take the view that a dividend controlled is only a dividend delayed, but that a wage claim controlled can be a wage increase lost.
Sir Roy's views are important to this discussion. While he may be more popular now, the party opposite was very annoyed with him for his comments about the European Common Market. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not refer to Sir Roy's letters to The Times when


he was attacking the Tory drive to join the Common Market. I am sure the House will agree that the agricultural policy of the Common Market has proved to be so restrictive and inward looking that, if we had followed the policy advocated by the previous Government and the party opposite, there would have been a drastic increase in the cost of living as well as very serious damage to the interests of the Commonwealth.
It has been suggested by some hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate that there is broad agreement about the need for a prices and incomes policy. It is, however, a nonsense to say that those who believe in classical free enterprise can at the same time be said to believe in a prices and incomes policy. It was not only the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who attacked the idea of a prices and incomes policy root and branch. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that it was impertinent of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, with no knowledge of industry or business, to lecture them on their attitude to costs. What the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said as recently as 15th January, 1965, was that:
There is only one price which a firm or person is justified in trying to get for his goods and his services, and that is the price which he believes will bring him the best return. … To attempt to get this price is every seller's duty.
Those two statements represent a central attack on the whole concept of a prices and incomes policy, and I suggest that the Party opposite ought to reconsider its whole attitude to the question of equity in earnings, no less than its attitude to the question of prices.
I represent a consituency in which more than 20,000 people are faced with a substantial increase in their rents in September of this year. One of the principal reasons for this increase is that there has been a 7½ per cent. rise in building costs over the past two years. I am told that this upward trend in building costs is not likely to be arrested, and that we must learn to live with a constant increase in the cost of building homes. In my submission, this is a subject worthy of consideration by the Prices and Incomes Board. There may well be considerable benefits to be derived from consideration

by the Board of the effect of recent and projected increases in building costs on the rents of houses in large cities like Manchester.
During the last day or two I have been reading the monumental Report on the state of affairs in the North-West of England. It points out that 440,000 houses in the North-West are unfit for human habitation. These 440,000 slums were not created during the last nine months. Nor is it right that the cost of clearing them should, for the most part, fall on council house tenants. Such tenants are the people who, in my constituency at any rate, have suffered as much as anybody in the country from slumdom, and it is neither equitable nor reasonable that they should have to bear the cost of clearing up cities such as Manchester in the North-West.
A Motion such as that before the House today not only degrades those who drafted it; in my view, it also harms the reputation of the House. The people of this country appreciate that there was a desperately serious economic situation when the Government changed hands last October. They did not then appreciate the size of the foreign payments debt, but far more of them appreciate the position now. We on this side of the House will fully document the points made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade at every opportunity open to us.
People outside the House want us to discuss the real problems facing the country. They do not want exercises in party politics like those we have seen this afternoon. In the matter of prices, they want to see a determination by the Government to see that profiteering is stopped. They want to see the "consumers' charter", which has been promised for the next Session, introduced as early as possible. They want to see people who advance "phoney" excuses for increasing prices and people who bilk the public by all kinds of shady selling methods brought within the law. They want equity between people in different walks of life: no incomes policy can succeed without equity.
I appreciate the difficulties of the Treasury Bench. I felt for them when I heard some of the speeches which have been made against them today. Their task is correcting the damage done to the


economy by the last election being delayed as long as it was. There is serious concern in the country about prices. This concern has endured for many years. We are not likely to have a successful incomes policy unless we also have a successful prices policy, but we will never get that if we follow the advice which hon. Members of the party opposite have given in the debate today.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: We are now approaching the end of the first 300 days of a Socialist Government. We heard a good deal about the first 100 days, and that was marked by the first Budget. During the second 100 days, we had the second Budget, and now, during the third 100, we have what amounts to a third Budget. Instead of a case of one, two, three, go, we have had one, two three, stop. Looking at the faces opposite as the Chancellor made his statement, I could not help contrasting them with the beaming, happy faces which first confronted me in the House last October. Two hon. Members opposite asked two very pertinent questions of the Chancellor. One was about employment and the other about housing. These were very important questions, and I share the concern of the two hon. Members.
We are talking today about the cost of living. We should not be having this debate if hon. Members opposite and candidates of their party throughout the country had not made the definite promises which they did at the time of the last election. The Labour candidate who opposed me in Southgate used these words in his election address:
We shall take drastic action to stop prices rising.
What has happened about that drastic action? The first drastic action was last November in the first Budget, and we know what effect that had. We know what effect the tax on petrol had. If any one believed that that would have the effect of reducing the rise in prices, they must be like the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" who said that she once believed six impossible things before breakfast.
Figures have already been given of the overall increase in prices during the past

months. I do not want to go into too many details. I asked a constituent of mine a few days ago—knowing that I was hoping to take part in the debate—how she found things. She is a widow on a small fixed income, and I asked which of the prices which had gone up had particularly affected her. She said that her bread had gone up 2d. a loaf, her beef—I know that she does not have the best cuts—1s. 8d. a lb., margarine 4d., flour 2d. If the increases in rates, postage and other household expenses are added on, one can imagine how much worse off she is today than a year ago.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) would not give way when I tried to intervene. I think that it is fair now, although he is not in the Chamber, to put to him the question which I wanted to ask him when he was talking about the rise in prices. I wanted to know what he said in his election address about attacking the cost of living and the rise in prices. Of course, we do not know what he said. Despite what the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who has also vanished—I apologise to him; he has moved to another place.
I want to mention very briefly the question of public service and Armed Forces pensioners. I do not see why I should not: I am not speaking with crocodile tears. I have here two letters from constituents of different kinds, who are typical of many people in many parts of the country. One is a public service pensioner who writes about the large number of his fellow public service pensioners who are finding it difficult at this time to make both ends meet. The other is an Army pensioner who writes:
In my case, I retired in 1953, after 39 years of service in the ranks, ranging from Gunner in the Royal Artillery to Major. Now I receive a pension lower than that of a Warrant Officer of equivalent service and my widow will, on my demise, receive the princely sum of 38s. 11d. per week.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My point is that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends should accept that there is deep concern among right hon. and hon. Members on this side. There was so much concern that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite came to the House at 3.30 in the morning recently


to raise this subject. Will the hon. Member accept that we believe that these people are more likely to get justice from a party which believes in social justice than from a party which opposes it?

Mr. Berry: I do not accept the last part of what the hon. Member said. I accept his sincerity and I hope that he accepts mine.
The Prime Minister has, up to a point, kept his word in what he said of pensions some time ago:
We have on a number of occasions given a pledge that they will be reviewed.
He is reviewing them, but it is time that something was done about it—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Berry: I will just finish this sentence.
It is time that we had the result of that review. Not only is time going by, but also, because of increases in the cost of living, even the existing pensions are going down in value.

Mr. Lewis: If the Government were immediately to implement these pensions, could we have an assurance from the hon. Member that, unlike what the Opposition did when the old-age pensions were increased, they will not then vote against the wherewithal for paying these pensions? When this Government rightly came straight in and increased old-age pensions, that side of the House voted against every means and method of raising the money to pay for them.

Mr. Berry: I will not accept that for one moment—

Mr. Lewis: It is true.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Member may think that it is true, but my position is that I will do everything I can to support anything which is done by the Government to improve the lot of these people.
I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Wythenshawe into his discussion of the letter by Sir Roy Harrod. Any gaps in my education are due to the fact that, in October 1947, when Sir Roy was supposed to be teaching me the principles of economics, Dr. Dalton was Chancellor and Sir Roy spent all his time telling me about the follies of Dr. Dalton.
The President of the Board of Trade said that if the Government's policy succeeds prices will come down. We now have this word "if" creeping in. There were no "ifs" at the time of the last election. He referred also to unemployment figures. The Government have rightly referred to unemployment figures being wonderfully low. But do they sincerely believe that when the House reassembles at the end of October they will be able to say the same thing?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to resent the Motion. They seem to resent the fact that we are spending our time today discussing what I believe is an extremely important subject. They claim that they did not know the economic position of the country when they took office last October. They may not have known all about it, but they must have had a fairly good idea. If they had any doubts at all about the economic situation they should not have made the promises they did make at that time. Parliament and the nation would have respected them much more had they said, "We believe that conditions are bad, so we will not make any promises until we are able to put things right". The public will not forget that, and that is why at the next General Election I, for the first time as a Member of Parliament, will be sitting on the benches opposite.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I hope that the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of service pensions. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and others who have said that the two main subjects which have been raised today should have been considered in two separate debates. Parliament could have done proper justice to the question of rising prices and the important matter of pensions had we discussed the two items separately, instead of using one as a sort of smokescreen when the other is of vital importance to a section of the community which deserves great sympathy and consideration.
Many of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite today have been contradictory. It is obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot make up their minds whether or not they believe in the principle of a prices and incomes policy. The


hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was in favour of such a policy and his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) thought that all hon. Members agreed that such a policy was desirable, if it could be achieved. The trouble is that all hon. Members do not agree. There are certain hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite who are opposed to our views on this matter. After all, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said on 8th January last that it was impertinent of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, having no knowledge of industry or business, to lecture industrialists and businessmen about their attitudes towards costs. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—[HON. MEMBERS: "South-West."]—I am referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and not to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short)—I would not want to confuse the two; there would be a terrible row if that happened—because the right hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned about a letter which my right hon. Friend had sent to industrialists. He referred to it as:
… tyranny and lawlessness of a kind we have seen too often in too many countries in our own generation".
I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to say once and for all whether they agree with the Government in wishing to achieve their prices and incomes policy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. Either they accept that policy or they do not. The House and the country have a right to know exactly where they stand and their views are important from the point of view of controlling prices and modernising industry.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made an interesting and knockabout speech, although he had to admit that it is not an easy matter to control prices. It would, of course, be a relatively simple matter if we lived in a dictatorship, in which force and not persuasion was the order of the day. Fortunately, we live in a democratic society in which my hon. and right hon. Friends believe in persuasion. The present Government are doing everything possible to ensure that persuasion and not force is used.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Labour Government inherited a fully employed but not over-stretched economy when they gained power. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gets his facts right. When the former Tory Government left office there were more than 380,000 people unemployed in Britain. The only occasion when the total of unemployed fell below that figure was in 1951, when the previous Labour Government went out of office. In 1955 it went down to 1·1 per cent. Apart from that, it has been well above that percentage, sometimes reaching 2·5 per cent. It is now down to the same rate as in 1951. It is, therefore, not true to say that we inherited a fully employed economy. We inherited an economy which had, in certain areas, relatively high figures of unemployment. The new Labour Government have reduced those figures. On Merseyside the unemployment figures are today lower than at any time since 1951. These figures must be borne in mind when discussing this matter.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East went on to say that he and his hon. Friends believed in high earnings. The Tory Party and employers have never accepted a policy of high earnings for the average industrial worker. When I was in the United States a few years ago I studied the situation in industry there and contrasted it with the position here. I returned home knowing that not only do we have differences of attitude about the labour movement but we also have a different attitude in regard to employers.
Employers in Britain have never accepted a policy of high earnings for industrial workers, although such a policy is fully acceptable to their counterparts in the United States. The reason why such a policy is not acceptable here is because British employers will not accept modernisation, with the necessary technological advances, in the same way as they are accepted in the United States.
When there is a wage increase in the United States the employers immediately take measures to modernise and so meet the rising costs instead of immediately passing them on to the consumer. In this country such attempts are not even made. Increased wages are immediately


passed on to the consumer and we will not go in for the highly developed industrial techniques which are necessary to avoid increased costs being passed on. This is one vital difference between the two countries, and hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear it in mind because they say that they speak for industry. They must recognise that industrialists here, even today, do not accept what in the United States has been accepted for a considerable time. Perhaps, with their new leader, the Tories will get down to the problem. Perhaps that is the object of the exercise. That would be all to the good of the country, although they have not a cat in hell's chance of getting elected as a Government at the next election.
I have listened this afternoon to the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Frankly, the hypocritical crocodile tears which have come from the other side of the House have made me quite sick. I have never listened to so much hypocrisy as I have had to listen to this afternoon, Hon. Members opposite must understand this; that we are in this position in the country economically because of their actions, on the one hand, and their inactivity, on the other hand. Yet they have the effrontery to say that the Labour Government are responsible for our economic difficulties. In fact, it would have been a miracle if the Labour Government had been able to solve the economic problems overnight.
If the Tory Party had been in office the economic difficulties would have been solved in an entirely different way. There is no doubt about that. By now we should have had a very high level of unemployment. That is always the way in which they have solved their economic problems. Let me give some unemployment figures for Merseyside. In July of this year we had 15,384 unemployed. I consider that this is still a relatively high figure—indeed, far too high. But in July, 1963, it was 29,621 and in July, 1964, it was 22,207. In the City of Liverpool in 1963, it was 17,000, or 4·7 per cent. of the working population. In 1964 it was 13,000. Today it is 9,000. That is significant, and it is very important when we are discussing the rising cost of living. At least those who are working are able to purchase the goods which are being produced and those who are unemployed or on National Assistance

are getting far higher benefits than they got before, and therefore their purchasing power is greater.
The Government are trying seriously to tackle the problem. The previous Government failed lamentably, because with them we had both rising unemployment and a rising cost of living. Under the Labour Government it is admitted that the cost of living has risen far too much, certainly far too much for my liking, but at the same time we have not had a serious rise of unemployment, although that is exactly what would have happened if the Tory Party had been in Government at present.
The average increase in the cost of living was 2¾ per cent. each year from 1956 to 1964. The £ certainly is worth less now than it was in 1946. The goods and services which cost £1 in 1946, cost 31s. 3d. in 1956 and 37s. 4d. in 1964. The cost of living is well over one-third higher than it was 10 years ago. We all know what has been the effect of rising prices. The interesting pamphlet issued by the Department of the First Secretary of State outlines it clearly. I do not think there is any difference on this aspect. Everyone will agree that we have a very serious problem which must be overcome and which the previous Government never began to tackle.
For example, in the 10 years 1953–63 the rise in imports was an average of 4 per cent. a year. Exports rose by 3·3 per cent. This is the basic reason why we are in our present difficulty. The deficit last year was £745 million, and it is no good trying to run away from it or suggesting that the figure should be covered up and that all the economic ills are the responsibility of the Labour Government. The fact is that we were left with that deficit by the Tory Government and by nobody else. We followed them, and we were left with these economic difficulties and problems. Much of the talk which we have heard this afternoon has been nothing but a smokescreen by the Opposition designed to hide the facts about the economic problems from the general public.
I accept the Government's policy in setting up a National Board for Prices and Incomes. I accept the machinery established by the Government to carry this out. If I have any criticism of this policy it is that it has not sufficient teeth


to deal with the problem. I am not too happy with merely appealing to manufacturers to try to restrict their prices. I certainly do not want to see a totalitarian system of society. I do not want to see the type of society which exists in Soviet Russia. But I know that we cannot rely upon the industrialists to decide off their own bat to restrict their prices, their dividends and their profits. It would be a very comforting thought if we could think that that was likely to take place. If the working people in the factories and the mines see that real efforts are being made to limit profits and dividends and to make certain that there is a greater equality in incomes, then they will wholeheartedly support the Government's policy on prices and incomes.
The situation of the past must be reversed. Let me quote from Table 21 of the National Incomes Blue Book. The share of the top 6 per cent. of personal incomes in 1954 and 1962 makes interesting reading. Pre-tax in 1954 it was £2,810 million. In 1962 it was £4,380 million. Post-tax in 1954 it was £1,950 million and in 1962 it was £3,250 million. The percentage retained after tax in 1954 was 69 per cent. and in 1962 it was 74 per cent. The share of the total post-tax income of the top 6 per cent. in 1954 was 17·6 per cent. and in 1962 it was 18 per cent. By contrast, the share of the total post-tax income for the bottom 40 per cent was only 17 per cent. An economist, well known in the Labour movement, Mr. John Hughes, makes the point that
over the years of Conservative rule the cost of living of the pensioner was rising half as fast again as that of high income households".
He also said:
Thus in terms of purchasing power we find that the top 6 per cent. increased their real income by rather more than a third between 1954 and 1962 while the purchasing power of all the other income groups ranked by size rose by rather more than a quarter.
The 6 per cent. in 1962 enjoyed 18 per cent. of the total post tax increase. These are very important figures, especially for workers in factories. This is precisely what the Government are intending and trying to reverse. This was the whole exercise in the Finance Bill which hon. Members opposite fought so strenuously

and resisted almost line by line, day after day because they are opposed to greater equality of income.
The Economist of 23rd May, 1964, stated:
A man who was earning between £3,600 and £4,500 in 1956 would need to have secured only a 39 per cent. to 38 per cent salary increase since 1956 to maintain his relative place in the community; a man who was earning between £600 and £2,000 in 1956 would have needed a 54 per cent. to 59 per cent. increase: in each case the man at the bottom needing more.
This is vital. These facts have to be brought out in order that the policy of the Government can be understood.
The housing component of the retail prices index showed housing costs to have risen by 62 per cent. from January, 1956, to the defeat of the Tory Government in October, 1964. This is where there were great increases in the cost of living. It is important to bear in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said on 22nd Jury, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). He said:
It is estimated that in the first quarter of 1965 total gross dividend payments in ordinary and preference shares were 28 per cent. higher than a year earlier. I consider that this rate of increase is excessive and am keeping a careful watch on the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 1809.]
There does not seem to be any great restraint of dividends. Hon. Members opposite should bear this in mind.
They are constantly talking about competition. One of the great difficulties is that industrialists in our country are not prepared to develop in a modern way with the use of modern industrial techniques as industrialists are in the United States of America. If we are to keep prices down and at the same time to ensure that our workers have sufficient incentive to increase productivity, it is not merely a question of asking the worker to work harder. The worker in British industry works just as hard as, if not harder than, workers in other countries.
What is vital is that industrialists should introduce modern technological methods in order that we can compete in world markets. Hon. Members opposite smile at that, but I have worked all my life in industry on the shop floor. I have seen obsolete machinery being utilised


when it should have been thrown out 50 years ago. It is still being used. The scandal is that the industrialists have done nothing about it. They pass on any increased costs to the consumer instead of developing new industrial techniques. Anyone who is serious would agree that this is happening. Of course there are honourable exceptions. Some industrialists have a modern outlook on industrial techniques, but in the main, it must be admitted, this is one of the basic faults of British industry to-day.
Everyone on this side of the House is more than merely disturbed by the fact that up to now we have not been able to control prices as we should like to have done. We want to introduce tougher machinery than that which has been used up to now, but we cannot get away from the basic fact that the measures which the Government are adopting and which are forced upon them because of the terrible economic problems left by 13 years of Conservative rule—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: rose—

Mr. Heffer: I will not give way because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Lagden: Very wise.

Mr. Heffer: All right. Then I shall give way.

Mr. Lagden: I was wondering where the hon. Member has been in the industrial world and seen all these factories which are living so much in the past with so little modern machinery and so forth. I invite him, if he is interested, to come to my constituency, which is in an industrial constituency and has many modern works. I should be delighted to show him the very modern methods used in those factories which the workers appreciate immensely. Before he makes these accusations against industry he should have a look at the order books and find the industries which are waiting for new machinery which is being produced as fast as may be and which will be in the hands of industrialists as soon as possible.

Mr. Heffer: I thank the hon. Member, because I can give one or two examples. I worked in shipyards on the Mersey, I have also seen shipyards in the United

States of America. There is no comparison. In shipyards in this country we are living in the past. There is no comparison between them and shipyards in Japan. Is it any wonder that we are losing orders for shipping construction to overseas competitors?
I have also worked in the building industry and have seen the lack of modern methods there. I have worked in the docks on Merseyside and have seen the complete failure to modernise. I could go on giving such examples. I, too, have modern factories in my constituency. They are the honourable exceptions. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that all British industry is so modern and highly developed that there is no need to worry about this. If that is what he believes, he does not agree with those on his own Front Bench who, I am certain, would never argue that there is no need for modernisation.
I have explained that the reason why the Government must carry out these measures and the reason why they have not, up to now, been able to contain prices in the way they would like to have done is primarily because of the failings of hon. Members opposite, who were in Government for 13 years.

8.30 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I believe that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is one of the new Members who are agitating strongly for an alteration in the procedure of the House. Perhaps he should take to heart his own words, also those of some of his hon. Friends, and bear in mind that short speeches are sometimes greatly appreciated.
The hon. Gentleman, in common with a number of his hon. Friends, blames us for all the troubles of the Government. Whether that is a just charge or not, what the country wants to know is what the Government intend to do about the trouble. The hon. Gentleman challenged us to say whether we believe in a prices and incomes policy. A prices and incomes policy is only part of the Government's policies. Call it what you like, we are debating the effects of Government policy, which seem to us to be leading to steeply rising prices. We do not doubt the good motives of the Government. We believe that the Government are failing in their


policies. We believe that it is our duty to pinpoint and expose these failures.
The general consensus of opinion on both sides of the House in this debate has been that rising prices are automatically a bad thing. A study of economic history teaches us that times of rising prices are times of prosperity, both national and international. The trouble is that the rises fall unfairly on different sections of the community. There are pressure groups who are able to contract out of rising prices. Those without the support of a pressure group, such as pensioners and those on fixed incomes, are the ones who suffer.
This process has been assisted by the Government. I well remember the Prime Minister in the debate on the Gracious Speech repeating that rather well-known and well-worn phrase, part of which is "to each according to his needs". The Government even have the effrontery in their Amendment to say
welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in greatest need".
The Government have taken off the prescription charges, but those have been taken off for everybody, rich and poor. The Government have increased pensions, but those have been increased for everybody, rich and poor. Council house tenants are still subsidised. I quote this from the Sun today:
My yacht and cars—by council house man.
This man is paying 50s. a week rent in a subsidised council house. This may be one case, but there are many cases like it. I accept that they do not all have a yacht and two cars, but there are many people in subsidised houses who do not need the subsidies.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is this man a member of the Labour Party?

Captain W. Elliot: That I do not know.

Mr. Monslow: The hon. Gentleman is talking about subsidised council houses. Is he aware that the cost of subsidies for council house tenants is much less than the Income Tax rebate for owner-occupiers?

Captain W. Elliot: That may well be so, but my point is that there are many

tenants of council houses who do not need a subsidy. The effect of the Government's measures to date is not, as the Prime Minister claimed, to each according to his needs. The effect is to help many who do not need help, whilst many who need help do not get enough.
It must be recognised by hon. Members opposite that price increases in the last ten months have been an act of deliberate policy by the Government. I am surprised sometimes at the ignorance shown on the benches opposite about this fact. An instance which springs to my mind is the exchange the other day when an hon. Member opposite asked the Minister whether importers, then paying a 15 per cent. surcharge, should refrain from passing the full amount on to the customer. The Minister replied that he thought that they should, but it seems to me that the surcharge was applied precisely in order to raise prices to check imports and that if prices did not rise imports would not be checked. This is an illustration of what the Government are aiming at. There are also the increase in Income Tax, the 6d. on petrol and other taxes which were put on specifically to raise prices.
Many of these price increases imposed by the Government have still to work their way through the economy. Prices will rise higher still and, if the Government are not careful, they will achieve with the latest clampdown a classic example of rising prices in a deflationary situation. We recognise the balance of payments difficulty. We must reduce demand. It is being done now to a great extent by raising prices, but, as usual, these price increases are being borne unequally by different sections of the population.
The First Secretary is ostensibly acting fairly in attempting to put forward an incomes policy with a norm of 3½ per cent. increase in wages, but all this is a facade and the Government know it. A great deal of heat is engendered when we consider the effect of wages and salaries on prices and we relegate profits to the background, but the fact is that wages and salaries are normally by far the biggest factors in costs. No argument will conceal that. I say that the Government's incomes policy is a façade for this reason. The main purpose of trade unions is to


secure the best possible pay and conditions for their members. They want the biggest possible slice of the national cake. There is a fundamental conflict between capital and labour over the share of the fruits of labour and over the size of the slice of national cake.
I am not one of those who says that there is only one side to industry. I believe that there are two sides and that they are in conflict. We can do much to mitigate that conflict, and much has been done, but there is no point in not recognising the basic differences. The unions have been very successful in the last decade in their aim to get the biggest slice of the national cake. They have not only kept abreast of inflation, they have kept ahead of it and in their approach to the Government's incomes policy they have been inspired by that one same purpose.
The following is an extract of what was said in the General Council of the T.U.C. as reported in the latest report of the Department of Economic Affairs:
The General Council have throughout the discussions made it clear to the Government and to representatives of the employers' organisations that trade unions would co-operate in a prices and incomes policy only if it appeared to them likely to secure broad trade union objectives more effectively than present policies.
So the T.U.C. decided to co-operate.
As I see it, there are certain broad rules which the unions adopt when making claims. First, they say that industry can bear the cost, and they refer to profits and the rest. Second, they say that present wages are too low anyway. Third, they apply the principle of comparability. Those three criteria give any pressure group ample room to stake a claim in practically any conditions, indeed, in all except one, and that is when the money is not there.
If the Government were to have the co-operation of the unions, those three criteria had to be covered in any incomes policy. This was done, and in paragraph 15 of their Prices and Incomes Policy White Paper, Cmnd. 2639, they said:
Exceptional pay increases should be confined to the following circumstances:

"(i) where the employees concerned, for example by accepting more exacting work or a major change in working practices, making a direct contribution towards increasing productivity …

"(ii) where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living;
"(iv) where there is widespread recognition that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out of line …"

I make no complaint about those conditions, but that is what is written into the Government's income policy White Paper. Under that policy, therefore, the unions have, in their view quite legitimately, to secure—in their own words—"broad trade union objectives" and I believe that the Transport and General Workers' Union is only being a bit more straightforward and frank in admitting it.
We have seen the result in the past few months, a complete and utter disregard of the 3½ per cent. norm, a norm which the unions argue, according to Government policy, does not apply to them. The rest of the story we know—rapidly rising prices, exhortations from the Chancellor and the First Secretary and warnings that the nation is paying itself too much, and completion of the circle by the Chancellor's announcement yesterday. We are back to "stop", with deflation, retrenchment, discipline of the market, and a situation in which extra money cannot be paid because it is not there.
I assume that the money is not there, of course. If it is, these latest measures will fail. We have done it before. We are doing it again, and again we shall fail. No doubt, after a period of stagnation we shall expand again and then, if nothing is changed, in due course grind to a halt. But this is not the way, and it is the responsibility of every Member of the House to find another solution, I shall make my modest suggestion.
I am glad that the Minister of Labour is here to hear what I have to say. For generations in this country, labour and management have endeavoured to avoid the sanction of the law like the plague whenever disputes have arisen. They always maintain that it will not work. But times have changed. In the first place, whether they like the description or not, the unions are now a pillar of the "Establishment". No doubt, many of their members will resent that description, but I believe it to be right, and no matter how loud the singing of "The Red Flag"


at annual conferences, it will remain true. Secondly, we have Government acceptance of the policy of full employment. All Governments rightly accept this. Probably they would not last very long if they did not.
These two facts, in my view, suggest that we must make a change of direction in our consideration of industrial negotiations bearing in mind the effect that they have on costs and prices. We should examine carefully the methods used in such a country as Australia. There, a modern industrial community, although small, provides a model, and it is, of course, an intensely democratic country. I lived there for a few years, and, although I was not directly connected with the unions, I saw something of their work. The days lost through official strikes there are probably as many as, if not more than, those in this country, but to the best of my knowledge the days lost through unofficial strikes, go-slows and so on are almost negligible, and it those, I believe, which do the damage in this country.
The reason for this state of affairs in Australia is perfectly clear. The unions have a tight—one might almost say "iron"—grip over their members. It might be much too tight for this country, but it has the effect which I have described. The trade union officials control their members. They can order them back to work, just as courts there can order a union to get its members back to work, or they will suffer continuing penalties—and those penalties are effective.
It is only too clear that in this country many union officials cannot control their members. I am frequently told that the responsible leaders know exactly what should be done, but the members will not accept it. We read that union officials because they are too busy with routine work are often out of touch with the men on the shop floor. In other words, whereas in Australia the control is very tight, in this country it is very loose. It seems to me that a closer examination of the possibility of some effective compromise is justified.
If we accept the changed status of the trade unions from their early days to their position as a pillar of the establishment

today, then I believe that their position in relation to the law must be reconsidered, not only to circumscribe the unions but to enable them to exercise increased control over their members. In the Guardian today—I will not waste the time of the House by reading it all out—there is a report of remarks by Lord Robens under the heading: "Unions Must Control Members". There is a short article on what he said, and I agree with him. We are to have a Royal Commission to examine the position, and perhaps it will consider this. But can we wait? I think not. Prices are soaring. We are in for the full rigours of the "Stop". The change, should it be made, will take time. I believe that we have to get busy now.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) took some of his own advice, but I wish that he and his hon. Friends would take some of that advice when they are repeating the attacks upon the trade union movement in general and the Transport and General Workers Union in particular. I trust that the repeated attacks that we have heard in the last week will have been fully reported and brought to the attention of members of trade unions so that when the next General Election comes they will know clearly what they can expect from the Conservative Party.
The picture is emerging. Clearly, repressive machinery which hon. Members opposite threaten will certainly be brought into action to curb the activities of trade unions. As I have said on previous occasions, hon. Members opposite repeatedly, with hand on heart, pledge their support for freedom for trade unions to operate and the right to strike, but will do everything in their power to restrict our trade unionists in operating this right. I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in view of the time, into the labyrinths of the alleged responsibilities of the trade unions for the economic ills from which we are supposed to be suffering and for the rising prices with which we are confronted. Suffice it to say that I believe that the celebrated remark made by an equally celebrated trade union official—that, so long as the economy is based on a free-for-all, the


workers will ensure that they are part of the "all"—is valid.
We are in a free-for-all economy and one cannot blame the workers if they say that, so long as that is so, they will not be made the scapegoats continuously. I agree that we have to work for the success of the Government's prices and incomes policy but I am equally convinced that we shall not get acceptance of it unless those at whom it is principally directed—the workers in industry—are able to see clearly that the burdens will be shared equally and that distributed dividends and profits will be attacked as much as wages are attacked.
I waited patiently not to reply to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton but to the speeches by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who both upheld the virtues of competition, and suggested that, if there were more vigorous competition, many problems from which we are suffering would presumably diminish and perhaps even disappear.
It is odd that the suggestions about the virtues of competition seem to be confined to competition in the selling of manufactured goods and commodities. Somehow, when the advocates of competition extol its virtues they do not apply it to the working man as well. The only thing that the working man has to sell is his muscle and brain power, but we are told that he must not exercise his right to compete in selling it. I am glad that he does not. If our miners or railwaymen were to exercise the tremendous power that they have, where would this country be?
The workers have acted in a most responsible manner by not using to the full the tremendous power they possess. After all, this is what the fight is about on the Southern Region. It concerns what price men can have for the labour they sell. The ultimate logic of the sort of argument advanced from the benches opposite today is acceptance of the point of view of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell), who has said that there is only one price which a firm or person is justified in trying to get for his goods or services, and that is the price which he believes will bring him the best return, and that it is his duty to get that price.
By that standard, is it not therefore the duty of trade unionists to get the full benefits of their industrial power? But they are not as irresponsible as the right hon. Gentleman and the 20 hon. Members opposite who share his views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fifteen."] I am relieved that there are only 15. I do not take such a detailed interest in the party opposite. Perhaps I was overwhelmed by the speculation.
The hon. Member for Beckenham drew attention to the debates in the last Parliament about resale price maintenance, making special reference to chemists. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) produced correspondence received from a constituent. I, too, have received correspondence from a constituent who is the proprietor of a chain of very large supermarkets and therefore not a person who would be assumed to have an identity of interests with me.
My constituent wrote to me enclosing the following correspondence:
Private and Confidential.
The Proprietary Articles Trades Association.
We have been informed that you are selling"—
Mr. X's—
baby products below the manufacturer's stipulated minimum retail prices.
If this information is correct, will you please note that the manufacturers concerned … have fixed the minimum retail prices at:
The letter goes on to tell my constituent that unless he sells at those prescribed prices, he will be faced with an injunction against him in the High Court.
He included another letter from Messrs. McKenna and Company, Solicitors, Whitehall, London, which said:
Dear Sir,
We have been instructed by the Phillips, Scott and Turner Company to write to you in connection with sales by you of Andrews Liver Salt … Recently a purchase of the 3s. 9d. size of Andrews Liver Salt was made from your store at the cut price of 3s. 2d. and this sale clearly constitutes a breach of our Clients' conditions of sale.
Now that our Clients' condition of sale has been brought to your notice we shall be pleased to have from you an assurance that you will, in future, sell our C'lients' medicinal products only at the retail prices fixed by them.
Another letter concerns Mars Products, the makers of Mars bars, and reads:
I am sure you will agree it would be a pity to cut your customers' supplies of Mars Products and will resume normal prices as soon as possible.


I could give a whole string of similar examples in this correspondence from my constituent.
This correspondence suggests that business people have some responsibility for high and increasing prices. When recently interviewed by the local Press, my constituent concluded the interview with these words:
I, for one, feel extremely grateful for the benefits derived from the efforts of the Socialists and the trade unions. At least they gave us the dignity to stand up as human beings and look forward to a society where there is an alternative to paying lip-service or bowing and scraping to qualify for a flunkey.
I also clearly recall the debate which followed the announcement of the Price Review by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture who was severely criticised by hon. Members opposite. I recall that one of the consequences forecast was that dairy herds would be slaughtered wholesale, with a consequent shortage of milk. Hon. Members opposite built up a formidable pressure to increase the price of milk and allowances to farmers. They had some success and, as a consequence of their pressure, the price of milk will be increased by ½d. per pint bottle from next Saturday. Hon. Members opposite must accept responsibility for that increase. But, far from dairy herds being slaughtered as a result of that Price Review, they are flourishing and milk production has increased.
Hon. Members opposite have repeatedly said that farmers do not benefit from subsidies for the sale of beef cattle. A farmer wrote to me last week to say that she had driven to market for slaughter four cattle for each of which she had received f12 for each of the last four years. In addition she had received the winter keep subsidy and the barley subsidy and had therefore benefited from those subsidies in addition to the enhanced price resulting from the shortage of beef on the home market because of Continental buying of beef in this country. That is the answer to those who say that we are unjustly attacking farmers.
One hon. Member drew attention to the subsidies being enjoyed by some tenants of council houses, but the subsidies received by people being rehoused from the slums is less than that being

paid in respect of beef cattle which are being exported. What a sad prospect when a beast which is going to be sold in the European markets receives a higher subsidy than a person who is being housed by a local council.
From my few remarks it will be abundantly clear that, far from the Government, far from the workers, the trade unions of this country, having been responsible for the increases in prices that have taken place, and which are taking place, they are as much the responsibility, if not the sole responsibility, of the business friends of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: May I immediately say that the only thing about the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) with which I agree is that he has a reasonable surname. Apart from that, I must confess that I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour replies he will be announcing the Government's new attitude to farmers. I would be interested to hear that he agrees with the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster that the subsidy on the price of milk is too high and that there should be a reduction in the subsidy on beef.
I would like to say a few words about the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade failed to move. I wonder if one of the reasons why he failed to move this particular Amendment was that he had a twinge of conscience about the last few lines of the Amendment which read:
… and in particular welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in the greatest need.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to claim credit for the increase that has taken place in pensions. It was an increase which was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) pointed out, in line with the general cycle of increases that have taken place over the years. In the same way, we would take credit for the fact that during the period of 13 years of a Conservative Government old-age pensions were increased by twice as much as the rise in the cost of living. The Amendment specifically


states that it welcomes the "special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in the greatest need".
Who are those in the greatest need? I would suggest that those with the greatest need are those people on fixed forms of pensions, such as the public service pensioners, the Armed Services pensioners and those who receive no pension at all. These are the people whom I would have thought all Members of the House would agree are in the greatest need. As far as these people are concerned, I would like to reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, which is that as a result of this Government being in power for eight months these people are worse off today than when the Government came into power. We do not complain that the Government have not immediately brought in an increase for these people. There has been a rise of more than 4 per cent. in the cost of living and these people have received nothing. Their hope was that expressed by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who stated that there was going to be a priority to the incomes guarantee proposals. We heard yesterday that this has now been postponed. Therefore, these people must be asking what provisions the Government are going to make to fulfil their definite election promises on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who I am sorry is not here, implied that the Minister of Labour was going to deal with this subject in his winding up speech. If the Government do have any proposals to make on this subject to the House today, I would have thought it was a courtesy to the House to deal with them in the opening speech. Speaker after speaker has wanted to deal with this topic and has been unable to know what is in the Government's mind. All we have had is the vague hint that the Minister of Labour would say something at the end of the debate.
I should like to comment on the fact that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour have been chosen as the Government's Front Bench spokesmen on this topic. We appreciate that the Minister of Labour has a great deal to do with the subject of the rise in

the cost of living. He enjoys respect on both sides of the House as a sincere, genuine Minister who boldly says what he thinks about problems affecting the cost of living and the attitude of both sides of industry. We welcome him in that context.
However, I should have thought that a debate on the cost of living should have been attended by somebody from the Department of Economic Affairs. It is remarkable that the Government have a Ministry which they state is responsible for prices and incomes and yet not only do they not put up a speaker from that Ministry to take part in this debate, but for virtually the whole of the debate no Minister from that Department has been present. We had exactly the same treatment throughout the debates on the Finance Bill, when there was virtually never a Minister from that Department involved or even listening to the debates. But to have a debate specifically on the 'subject with which that Department is concerned and for it to treat this House with such contempt that not a member of it even attends is something for which the House deserves an apology.
This is a remarkably different debate from the debate which we had last July when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in opposition. That was a Supply day and they chose the cost of living as the subject to be debated. The two Labour Party speakers on that occasion were the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opened and the First Secretary of State wound up the debate. Yet a year later, when the same subject is being discussed, those two Ministers have hardly attended the debate at all.

Mr. Lubbock: Neither the Minister of Labour nor the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for public service and Armed Forces pensioners. We have not had the presence of the Minister responsible for those matters either.

Mr. Walker: That is perfectly true. It fits in with the general complacency of the Government on this whole topic.
I do not know why the President of the Board of Trade, who opened the debate, has failed to put in an appearance. Naturally, I wish to deal with his speech, which was quite the most complacent speech we have heard


from the Dispatch Box opposite—and that is saying a great deal. Here was a Minister defending a situation in which the cost of living had been rising at a considerable rate. He said that in the last year of the Conservative Government the cost of living rose by nearly 4 per cent. What a defence for a Minister speaking for a Government under which the cost of living has risen by more than that amount in eight months!
The right hon. Gentleman said that under the Labour Government the production figures had improved. Under the Conservative Government, he said, there was not the increase in production that we needed, but at least under this Government there had been an increase in production. I should have thought that the Government would have been anxious to point out not their smugness and satisfaction with the production figures but their real and deep concern.
When did the production figures rise? They rose, not during recent months, but during the first two or three months after the Government came to power. All the increase in production took place before December. Today, the latest figures show that industrial production is running one point lower than it was in January. Yet the President of the Board of Trade boasts of the Government's record in production. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I can well understand him not wanting to attend the wind up of the debate, for certainly his speech dealt with none of the basic problems concerned. It was also remarkable that in a debate on this subject there should have been no mention whatever of the general subject of savings. As my hon. Friend the Lady for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) pointed out, savings is of vital importance at a time when one is trying to release [Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on, George."] I am certainly glad that the First Secretary has at last put in an appearance, and may I also give a welcome to the President of the Board of Trade, whom I now see entering the Chamber, who, having made his opening speech, has taken no interest in the debate all day. It is very good of him to arrive albeit, as always, a bit behind the times.
As far as savings are concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary wishes to talk I suggest that he comes into the House. There has been no comment from the Government on the very real drop in savings which has taken place in the last few months, and the House deserves some explanation. In his speech last November, the Chancellor stated quite clearly that, in order to see that the balance of supply and demand was reasonably returned, he was dependent upon the savings movement. He paid tribute to the savings movement and referred to its great importance in keeping us free from inflation. Yet almost every section of the savings movement has declined during the period that the Government have been in office. National savings, trustee savings banks, investments in equity—all are in decline. The Chancellor appears to show no alarm at all that in the first 15 weeks of the financial year net deposits in National Savings amounted to only £2 million compared with £72 million for the same period last year. He seems to show no anxiety that investment deposits of the trustee banks are reduced to nearly half what they were during the same period last year.
The significant feature of the debate has been that almost every speaker from the other side of the House has blamed the serious rise in the cost of living upon the economic inheritance of the Government. If I may say so, the real issue at stake and the really vital matter that has been disclosed by the measures announced by the Chancellor this week has been the constant misjudgment of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) pointed out that we have now had 300 days of a Labour Government and that we have had a Budget for each 100 days: three Budgets during that period of time.
If the case of the Government is that it is the economic difficulties that they inherited that have caused the inflationary difficulties, they must explain their complete misjudgment in the White Paper that they published on 26th October. In that White Paper, after all the figures and all the facts were known to the Government, they clearly stated in paragraph 7 that, in their view, there was no undue pressure on resources calling for


action. This was their categoric statement in the White Paper.
That was followed a few weeks later by the first Budget, when the Government admitted that the White Paper of 26th October was no longer accurate and that there was need for a degree of inflationary taxation. They introduced a Budget which partly provided for the increase in pensions and to the extent of £100 million took extra taxation out of the economy. A little later we came to the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and then to the next Budget, when the Government again decided that the measures taken in their first Budget were not adequate and they had to go in for further taxation. After that, we had special controls and various hire-purchase restrictions, and yesterday we had the latest measures.
I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take advantage of this debate. I hope that the Minister of Labour, in his reply, will explain to the House the incredible statement made by the Chancellor only 13 days ago, when, on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and knowing all the facts and figures concerning our economy, said:
There is a temptation to assume, because the effects of these measures are not immediately obvious, that we should rush into further measures which would have the effect of restraining the economy even more. This would be an unfortunate thing to do and I am resisting the temptation to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 911.]
The Chancellor resisted that temptation for 13 days.
The whole of our difficulty today is concerned with confidence in the Government. How can anybody expect to obtain confidence abroad with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who completely changes his view within 13 days—not 13 days of Tory inheritance, but a further 13 days of Labour Government—and decides that these new measures are necessary? It would have been reasonable, and the Government could have argued the case, that the measures required when they introduced their White Paper in October were needed as a result of the economic position which they had inherited, it is feasible that they could even have argued that the November Budget was in that category, but they can no longer argue that the action which they are now taking results from anything other than a complete lack of confidence in themselves.
In last year's debate, which took place almost a year ago today, the Chancellor expressed how serious he felt were the increases that were then taking place in prices upon the general situation of the incomes policy. It was interesting how he listed the various items that were increasing in price. He enjoyed himself quoting increases which had taken place in the previous months of the then Conservative Government.
I thought that tonight the Chancellor might be interested to have a progress report to see how much better he has done in these respects than his Conservative predecessors. Last year, he bemoaned the fact that petrol had gone up ½d. a gallon. He has done much better than that; he has put it up 6d. He pointed out the horrors of the rates going up by 7·8 per cent. in one year. Whilst he has been Chancellor, they have gone up 14 per cent. He commented last year on the penny on beer and 4d. on cigarettes. He has put a penny on beer and 6d. on cigarettes. A year ago he made a witty remark about the Marie Antoinette attitude of the Tories by which a position had been reached that turkey was cheaper than beef. Such is the price of beef under the present Government that it is now nearly twice as expensive as turkey.
Last year, the Chancellor drew attention to the importance of the basic services and the increases in their price. He claimed that the cost of electricity had gone up. There are millions of people in London who could tell him about the 11 per cent. increase in the cost of their electricity supplies since the Government have been in office.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since the hon. Gentleman is recalling the debate of a year ago, will he tell the House what was the forecast of the deficit in the balance of payments as prophesied by the Government of that time?

Mr. Walker: It happened to be a debate on the cost of living, and presumably the hon. Member was absent from that debate, as he has been from this one.

Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I put to him?

Mr. Walker: The balance of payments figures for the first half of 1964 were


announced on 30th September, 15 days before the General Election, and resulted in no withdrawal of election promises on that side of the House at all.
The Government are up to the usual form of Labour Governments. During the six years when a Labour Government were last in office the average rise in the cost of living was 6·5 per cent. This year the current rate of the rise in the cost of living is 6·6 per cent. It is no wonder that that distinguished cartoonist, Mr. Cummings, has had to resurrect Mr. Rising Prices, who has now become a regular feature.
What is the Labour Party's attitude to all this? How do hon. Gentlemen opposite defend this situation? We have heard no proposals today for what they are going to do on this topic. I saw the hon. Member for Doncaster fumbling with the latest little piece of research carried out by Labour Party headquarters at Transport House and produced in a leaflet a couple of weeks ago, no doubt encouraged by the Chancellor's speech of the 7th June. The leaflet is entitled. "Turning the Corner. An Economic Report", and the first paragraph contains this happy note from the Chancellor:
But I think we are turning the corner. From now on we can look forward to an improvement that will reflect on everybody.
My word it has!
Two pages of this leaflet are devoted to prices. One section entitled, "The Price War", contains two proposals. It says:
First, wasteful Government expenditure has been stopped".
on the day of publication it was announced that Parkinson's Law was rampant in the Ministry of Technology. Its only other definite proposal for the rising cost of living is that
plans will be announced shortly to help house buyers.
They were announced shortly. They were announced yesterday, and these proposals, put forward in a leaflet only ten days ago, have been abandoned by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman mutters "Postponed", but when a Government have a duration of life such as this Government have postponed means abandoned. The Labour Party

has no policy on this topic. All its policies have been essentially inflationary, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been responsible for many of the increases that have taken place.
The First Secretary wound up a similar debate on this subject last year. He is so associated with election promises on lower prices and lower mortgage rates that it probably makes him inappropriate to try to persuade people to comply with an incomes policy, for it was the right hon. Gentleman who was the great propounder of the 3 per cent. mortgage interest rate. It was the First Secretary who said last year that food prices were rising, but they were rising nowhere near as fast last year as they have risen this year. He complained that rates were going up due to the high Bank Rate and the failure of the Government to increase grants to local authorities. Now the interest rates are higher and the loans to local authorities will be lower. He complained that mortgages were going up. He said:
Everybody in every commuter area who is buying a house now finds his mortgage going up. Everyone who wants to buy a house now finds that he cannot raise the money to buy a house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 154.]
What prophetic words they have proved to be. The increase in mortgages then was nothing compared to what it has been since right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in power. He ended his speech by saying that the Government had failed. The failures he mentioned in his speech were insignificant compared to the failures of this Government in nine months.
In five minutes' time—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "You will be finished."] I want to give an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. In five minutes' time, there will be a party political television broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. Its title is "Go Ahead Year". After the failure of this Government, on the cost of living, it will not be "Go ahead year" but "Get out year".

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ray Gunter): I do not know that the debate has generated much apart from heat. Before I come to the main part of my speech, I want to correct one thing which


the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), either maliciously or in ignorance, conveyed to the House about the Royal Commission. In the course of his remarks, he said that the Government had been weak enough to give way and remove restrictive practices from the Commission's terms of reference. It would be a very bad thing for anybody to understand that that is right. The Commission understands, the trade unions understand and the employers understand that restrictive practices are fully covered by the words of the terms of reference:
… to consider relations between managements and employees and the rôle of trade unions and employers' associations in promoting the interests of their members and in accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation.
Therefore, I thought that I would immediately correct any misunderstanding that restrictive practices were outside the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir K. Joseph: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said that the trouble was that there is a lack of confidence in the Government. It might be a happier situation if that was simply the case. The real problem which faces this nation is that many people abroad are beginning to lose faith in the British people and their ability to adjust and adapt themselves. This is one of the disturbing factors abroad today. It is not only the Government but the fact that we have had so many crises over the past decade or so, we have been so unwilling as a nation—all sections of the nation—to get in tune with modern conditions, re-gear our industry and get away from restrictive practices, so that there is a growing feeling that perhaps we will never get round to doing the job.
Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Worcester that the problem, the difficulty of the nation is not simply and solely a lack of confidence in the Government: it is this growing feeling that the British people themselves are not willing to come to terms and get out of bad habits. One bad habit is living in debt. We have reached the stage in this nation when people, even to quote myself, can start talking about the underlying principles

of getting out of debt, and even a leading article in The Times can refer to it in such a condescending manner as "evangelical morality". It is as simple as the tenets on which we were brought up. We ourselves—the nation—are living in debt. It is bad and sinful and the only answer to it is to find the means of escaping from it.
I have listened to most of the speeches made today and I have not been impressed. I do not think that anybody honestly believes that we can deal with this problem by saying that the party opposite did such a thing in September of last year or that we did a certain thing in February of this year. The problem goes much deeper.
The O.E.C.D. Report, which has just been produced, was reported and quoted in The Times yesterday as follows:
On last winter's crisis the survey is in no doubt about the major trouble.
The hon. Member for Worcester insisted that the problem could be solved by getting supply and demand into balance. He inferred that it was only since the Labour Government came into power that this matter had arisen as a problem. The Times then quoted the survey:
'The rapid increase in total demand was the most important'.
and said:
This was the responsibility of the Conservative Government in an election year. Unfortunately, the Labour Government made the same mistake on reaching office.
In my opinion the problems are so fundamental that it is a fat lot of good to argue who was to blame in 1951 or in 1965. For this reason I should like tonight, in my own daft way, to turn to what I believe is the real beginning and the problems which face us in this sphere. Whatever may be the arguments on either side of the House, we all come to the same conclusion in the end—that the key to success in solving these problems is better and more efficient productivity. That, in turn, depends on a properly integrated policy of prices and incomes.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) said that the prices and incomes policy was a facade. That is his opinion, after three months. I do not believe that any responsible hon. Gentleman opposite would deny that at least an incomes policy of some sort is


necessary. Whether this is the right way I do not know, but I will deal with that shortly. Meanwhile, surely we all accept that some form of prices and incomes policy is necessary.
It was described as a facade, but whatever may be said, the Government have at least achieved one thing for the first time. It is that members of the Government and of both sides of industry have agreed on a strategy for creating a dynamic and socially just Britain. At least we can claim that the trade unions, employers and the Government have come together and have set down on a piece of paper what they know to be necessary to do this job.
I submit—and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me here—that if we look back in history we find that incomes policies of the past failed in their objectives because they were not agreed policies, because they concentrated on wages and salaries to the exclusion of other forms of income, because they did not leave room for social adjustments which justice required and, most important, they did not cover prices as well as incomes.
We have, therefore, at least got to this point since we have been in power. There is the intention. Of course, we all have intentions to live righteous lives and most of us are sinners. I know that. Nevertheless, there is the intention. Following the declaration of intent, and with the establishment of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the Government has worked out criteria for assessing price increases and the norm against which to assess wage claims.
I turn from the intent, if I may so put it, to the working out of the policy. Some hon. Members opposite have consistently tried to show that this agreed policy—and I emphasise the word agreed—has been and is ineffective. I will not try to claim for one moment any glorious successes in the first three months. Hon. Members opposite have argued, in many ways justifiably, that prices have continued to rise and that wage and salary increases have continued well above the norm. It is true that there have been rises in prices. Nobody can deny it; the facts and the statistics are there. And it cannot be denied that some of these rises are partly

due to Government action; they are partly due to measures to reduce the pressure of demand in the economy, and partly due to increases in money incomes which have exceeded the rise in productivity. In considering price trends, it is necessary to remember that there is always some time lag before changes in costs are fully reflected in price changes. As to labour costs, it is true that many settlements have exceeded the norm and also that the rate of increase in average earnings has continued to be high. I will speak more of this in a moment.
But I think that it would be wrong to assume, after this short period, that this policy is entirely ineffective. It has been fully in operation for only three months, and it would have been very foolish, I think, to expect a solution of the problem of inflation in such a short time when this country and others, as we all know, have been grappling with it for many years past. This policy requires changes in traditional habits and attitudes, and this cannot be achieved overnight, certainly not in this country. It is therefore, in my view, premature to judge such a policy on the experience of three months. In addition, the high level of demand and acute shortage of manpower, the current move towards the 40-hour week and the forward commitments on wages and salaries already entered into have all been obstacles in making this policy immediately effective.
It is quite clear, however, that prices and money incomes have recently been rising much too fast for the health and strength of the economy. It is impossible to show what prices and incomes increases there would have been had there been no agreed policy. We do not know. We have developed and are still trying to develop further a climate of opinion in this country in which there is a wider understanding and recognition than ever before of the need not only to increase output but also to relate incomes with output if prices are not to be continually forced up.
I am satisfied that in these new circumstances considerations of the national interest as well as of individual interest enter into particular decisions affecting prices and incomes, and future decisions will without doubt be influenced by the reports of the National Board for


Prices and Incomes, which will build up a body of case law.
We must, however, ensure that all individual decisions fully reflect the general considerations which have been agreed. We have said—and I repeat it—that the voluntary method will be given every chance before we try other methods. I believe, and the Government believe, despite the disappointments of the first twelve weeks, that the voluntary system can work and will work. If it does not work, then there will inevitably be some unpleasant alternatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] The unpleasant alternatives will have to be that any Government will have to face statutory action to control it. That is unpleasant action within a free society.

Sir C. Osborne: Since the voluntary system, which I subscribe to and we all subscribe to, failed under Sir Stafford Cripps in 1947–49 and is failing now, why does the right hon. Gentleman not say straight to the country that there will have to be a package deal imposing a limitation on all incomes and prices affecting everybody?

Mr. Gunter: I am trying to argue that so far we are not satisfied that this voluntary and agreed system has failed. What I said, and what I emphasise, is that it does not matter what Government are in power if the position goes on and we get further into debt we suffer the consequences of the debt and the Government have to do something about it.

Sir C. Osborne: Do it now.

Mr. Gunter: It is no good the hon. Member saying, "Do it now" for we have to take all parts of the nation with us. In a free society this is one of the most difficult problems we have to deal with. There have been critics of the policy throughout this debate. It has been said by one of the leading members of the party opposite, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it is impossible to have a prices and incomes policy and that to talk of it as if it were possible is dangerous nonsense. We cannot accept that. We do not believe that that is the way to approach our problems. It is certainly necessary to increase competition, as the Government have shown by introducing new legislation on monopolies,

but, even with strengthened legislation, competition is likely to remain far from perfect.
Therefore, our submission to the House is that competition and market forces cannot be relied upon alone to achieve price stability unless drastic deflation is accepted. I followed the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East very closely indeed and there appeared to be a suggestion in his mind that in the end a larger measure of unemployment was inescapable. I do not know, but that was the impression, and of course many people honestly believe it.

Sir K. Joseph: I thought I was following the Chancellor of the Exchequer in interpreting the Government's policy on the redeployment of labour towards the exporting industries. In order to achieve that it is necessary to get supply and demand in the right balance. That is all I was arguing.

Mr. Thomas Steele: The right hon. Member never said how it can be done.

Mr. Gunter: I turn to what the right hon. Member said and here I am in agreement. It is necessary to control the general pressure of demand, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear. The question is the degree to which it is considered necessary to restrain demand and the level of employment. Naturally, rises in costs and prices can be restrained, obviously, with a sufficiently drastic cut in consumption and a steep rise in unemployment. Let us remember that rises in unemployment tend to fall particularly heavily on those areas where unemployment is already above the average. What the critics of the policy have never done is to admit in effect that their policies would involve unemployment.
I say on behalf of the Government that we are determined as far as lies within our power to avoid such waste of our national resources and the hardship and suffering it would create, which this Government believe to be unnecessary. They are opposed to a free-for-all society in which the primary concern of everyone is to better his position at the expense of the whole community and the country's prospects of securing faster growth in real terms. A free-for-all society inevitably means that the strong should flourish


at the expense of the weaker members and that the Government are not prepared to accept. Therefore, I say a few words on the aims of the prices policy. The aim of the prices policy is to secure stability in the general price level. This does not mean that all individual prices can or should be kept stable. It has been estimated that about 3 million price changes a year take place—increases and decreases. A stable price level requires fewer increases and more reductions than have been seen in recent years. This, in turn, requires not only greater stability in the level of wage costs, but also greater efficiency on the part of management and more determined efforts to absorb cost increases.
Very often hon. Members opposite overlook the fact that men are blamed when a wage claim is granted and prices automatically rise. The public blames the trade unionists. Very often there is not the slightest need to increase the prices to the extent to which they are increased, in the light of the wage award. It is not possible to set out detailed rules to cover the circumstances in which all individual price changes can be made. The application of the general criteria which have been set out in the White Paper must be left to the individual enterprise.
"What about the nationalised industries?", the Government were asked in one interjection. This is always a sensitive spot. The nationalised industries are expected to apply the same criteria as enterprises in the private sector, while taking account of their financial and social obligations. The Government have already made clear the two sets of considerations which underlie the pricing decisions in the public sector. On the one hand, it is important, if economic expansion is to be secured and a possible misallocation of scarce resources avoided, that the nationalised industries should earn a reasonable rate of return on the capital which they employ. Much importance is therefore attached to the achievement of financial targets agreed between individual nationalised undertakings and the Government.
On the other hand, it is equally important that the prices and charges of those undertakings should be increased only where this is justified. The

nationalised industries are expected to make every effort to absorb increases in costs by increased efficiency, as they must if they are to remain competitive. Where a price increase cannot be avoided in the public sector, the Government regard it as important that its justification should be capable of being publicly demonstrated. In some cases these charges are subject to statutory forms of control or to examination by independent consultative bodies set up by statute, whose findings take into account views expressed by the consumers, and whose reports are published.
The Government do not rule out the possibility of reference of price increases in the nationalised industries to the National Board for Prices and Incomes if this seems appropriate. Indeed, they have already referred increases in London electricity charges to the Board. But such cases are not likely to be frequent—and I am sure that this would be the case whichever party is in power—as the Government are in close touch with the various nationalised industries and have arranged to discuss with them the justification for particular price increases and as many of the decisions have had to be submitted to the independent consultative bodies.

Mr. Lubbock: The increases imposed by the London Electricity Board have been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, but those imposed by the South-Eastern Electricity Board have not. The reason given in the House for this was that the body which purports to represent the consumer has not made any representations to the First Secretary asking him to do this. Could we have some other form of public demonstration, which the Minister has said we should have, justifying this large increase amounting to 13·3 per cent., which is much larger than the increase imposed by the London Electricity Board?

Mr. Gunter: I do not quite know the answer to that. I will have a look at it. [Laughter.] I do not know why the increase imposed by the South-Eastern Electricity Board has not been referred to the Board. I repeat that I do not know. What is the good of pretending you know if you do not know?
To turn to the productivity side, when all is said and done we must recognise


that we cannot hold costs and prices down unless we increase our output from the limited resources available to us. The most important of these resources, and the one for which, as Minister of Labour, I am primarily responsible, is manpower. If we want to expand national production and improve our standard of living in years to come we shall, if we go on in our present ways, undoubtedly run into a continuing manpower shortage which will largely frustrate our efforts.
This is what is referred to sometimes as the manpower gap—rather misleadingly because this seems to suggest that the gap can be filled only by additional manpower. This is not so. The way we should and must fill it is by more efficient and more productive use of our existing manpower resources. This means that we must give up many of our traditional ways of working and abandon restrictive practices which impede the growth of productivity. Before anyone cheers from that side of the House or this, let me say that there are as many restrictive practices on this side as on that side and therefore I refer to the totality of restrictive practices. This is not a matter for the trade unions only. It is something which must be tackled by management as well as the trade unions and, in co-operation with the trade unions, at the national level, at the industry level and, most important, at the level of the individual firm.
I should like to say something about restrictive practices which have aroused so much fury but which are so little understood. Trade union restrictive practices are not normally used for the deliberate purpose of restricting output. The men are not daft enough for that, because the bigger the output the bigger the pay. The motive behind them is usually the worker's desire to safeguard his relative status, his conditions of work, and, perhaps most important, his security of employment. These are legitimate matters. It is only when they are carried to unreasonable lengths or based on misconceptions that they can lead to practices which are indefensible.
We must recognise, however, and I ask all my colleagues in the trade union world to recognise it, that practices which were legitimate a generation ago are often indefensible today. The whole employment picture is entirely different. The

measures which the Government are now urgently bringing forward to provide greater economic security for workers, such as the Redundancy Payments Bill, and the plans for wage-related unemployment benefits, will provide protection that has never been available on so wide a scale before to those who have to change their jobs because of economic and technological developments. It is vital that both employers and trade unions alike should grasp this new opportunity they have of introducing new methods of efficient working and redeploying our labour force to its best advantage.
I emphasise that phrase "to its best advantage". It is to the advantage of all of us that our manpower resources, and that means the work of every one of us, should be used in the most effective way. One of the difficulties which we always find is to explain that the rise in the cost of living, or the increase in the retail price index figure, is the responsibility of everybody. People sometimes think that the rise in the price of potatoes, for example, is because something has happened—wages have gone up or there has been bad weather and anyhow it is the farmer's responsibility. They never stop to think that sometimes prices have gone up because of restrictive practices in the transport industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: The time is short and we have been promised a statement about public service pensions.

Mr. Gunter: On the question of public service pensions, there has been a lot of talk of pledges and counter-pledges. That is one of the curses of general elections. We all get confused [Interruption.]—but the real confusion, of course, is in the mind of the hon. Member for Worcester because there is nothing at all in the Labour Party manifesto about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Where is it? The Motion refers to the question of public service pensions. Under the previous Government, three years and five months were allowed to go past between the operative date of the Pensions Increase Act, 1959, and 1st January, 1963, when the 1962 Act came into effect. Before that, three years and four months elapsed between the operative dates of the 1956 and 1959 Acts.

Mr. Peter Walker: rose—

Mr. Gunter: Let me finish, boys. You have been very nice to me.
So far, it is only two years and seven months since the 1962 Act. Now, I look with trembling at the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) when I say that the Government have looked very carefully at this matter and, as has been known, it has been part of a very wide review. The hon. Gentleman did not like that word from the President of the Board of Trade, but it has, in fact, been the subject of a wide review. But would the House, in the light of this debate, whatever has been said, expect me to give any pledges, as have been asked for, or any guarantees that we should spend £100 million—I think that sum was mentioned—for this purpose now? I cannot give any guarantee in this debate. I point out, however, that a lot of these people have benefited from the increases which we gave almost immediately in the National Insurance pension. The great majority of public service pensioners have benefited from these. I do not, therefore, wish to say any more about it, and I would not anticipate—

Sir K. Joseph: rose—

Mr. Gunter: Let me finish. I was about to say that I would not anticipate the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Turton: The question is not when a new Pensions (Increase) Bill will be brought in but whether the present Government stand by the Prime Minister's pledge that he supports parity for public service pensioners.

Mr. Gunter: I understand that such a pledge was never given in terms of parity. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] In fact, I have turned up the guidance which was given

to Labour candidates at the General Election. [Interruption.] This is what is important, and it is very clear in that document that it was said that for financial reasons, among others, parity could not be guaranteed, but we were quite prepared to look at the whole situation. I repeat, therefore, that I do not wish to enter into the challenge here, and I am sure that hon. Members will have a full opportunity of discussing the question on the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Paget: At the Dispatch Box, on behalf of the party, I gave a pledge, with full authority, that parity would be accepted for Service pensioners. Will my right hon. Friend tell me—not for immediate implementation but as a matter of principle—whether that pledge which I gave on behalf of the party is adhered to or not?

Mr. Gunter: I am very sorry to be in conflict with my hon. and learned Friend. [Hon. Members: "Cannot hear."] I am sorry. I was talking to my hon. and learned Friend in reply to what he had said. I was saying that there seems to be some conflict of opinion as to whether the pledge, or alleged pledge, was given with full authority.
May I conclude the debate in this way? I think that it is rather a pity that, on an issue of this character, a few of the hon. Members who have spoken have not directed their real attention to the fundamental problems which underlie this country at the present time. I invite the House to support the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 298.

Division No. 264.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Braine, Bernard


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berkeley, Humphry
Brewis, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Bessell, Peter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Astor, John
Biffen, John
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Awdry, Daniel
Bingham, R. M.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bryan, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Black, Sir Cyril
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony


Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Hn. Clive
Bullus, Sir Eric


Batsford, Brian
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Box, Donald
Buxton, Ronald




Campbell, Gordon
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Carlisle, Mark
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peel, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hooson, H. E.
Percival, Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Peyton, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Hordern, Peter
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pounder, Rafton


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cole, Norman
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Cooper, A. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cordle, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Corfield, F. V.
Jennings, J. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crawley, Aidan
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Curran, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Roots, William


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kilfedder, James A.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lagden, Godfrey
Shepherd, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Sinclair, Sir George


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Speir, Sir Rupert


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eyre, Reginald
Longbottom, Charles
Stodart, Anthony


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fell, Anthony
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Talbot, John E.


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, Sir John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Teeling, Sir William


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin (Hove)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Maitland, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Thorpe, Jeremy


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mathew, Robert
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Grant, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David
Wall, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Webster, David


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wise, A. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hay, John
Orr, Cast. L. P. S.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Hendry, Forbes
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wylie, N. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Martin McLaren and


Hirst, Geoffrey

Mr. Ian MacArthur.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Albu, Austen
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Alldritt, Walter
Galpern, Sir Myer
McLeavy, Frank


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Garrett, W. E.
MacMillan, Malcolm


Atkinson, Norman
Garrow, A.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Barnett, Joel
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Baxter, William
Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Grey, Charles
Marsh, Richard


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Maxwell, Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mellish, Robert


Binns, John
Hale, Leslie
Mendelson, J. J.


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boardman, H.
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Boston, Terence
Harper, Joseph
Monslow, Walter


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Boyden, James
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hazen, Bert
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Albert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Neal, Harold


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Newens, Stan


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Norwood, Christopher


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

O'Malley, Brian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, James
Owen, Will


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Pargiter, G. A.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Cronin, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parker, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence


Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jackson, Colin
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Darling, George
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K 'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Redhead, Edward


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Donnelly, Desmond
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Ledger, Ron
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ennals, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rowland, Christopher


Ensor, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Floud, Bernard
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McInnes, James
Small, William







Snow, Julian
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Solomons, Henry
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Urwin, T. W.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Stonehouse, John
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stones, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor
Wyatt, Woodrow


Swingler, Stephen
Weitzman, David
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Symonds, J. B.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Taverne, Dick
White, Mrs. Eirene



Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. George Rogers.

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 298.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Albu, Austen
Dodds, Norman
Howie, W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
Hoy, James


Alldritt, Walter
Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Beaney, Alan
Ennals, David
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Ensor, David
Jackson, Colin


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Binns, John
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Bishop, E. S,
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Boston, Terence
Floud, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boyden, James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Broughton, Dr. A. D, D.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Garrow, A.
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Ginsburg, David
Ledger, Ron


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Buchanan, Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gregory, Arnold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Grey, Charles
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Lipton, Marcus


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lomas, Kenneth


Coleman, Donald
Hale, Leslie
Loughlin, Charles


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McBride, Neil


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
McCann, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, William
MacColl, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
MacDermot, Niall


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McGuire, Michael


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hart, Mrs. Judith
McInnes, James


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hattersley, Roy
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hazell, Bert
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Darling, George
Heffer, Eric S.
McLeavy, Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
MacMillan, Malcolm


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Holman, Percy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Delargy, Hugh
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mapp, Charles


Dell, Edmund
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marsh, Richard


Dempsey, James
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Roy




Maxwell, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen


Mayhew, Christopher
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Symonds, J. B.


Mellish, Robert
Randall, Harry
Taverne, Dick


Mendelson, J. J.
Redhead, Edward
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Millan, Bruce
Rees, Merlyn
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Reynolds, G. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Molloy, William
Richard, Ivor
Thornton, Ernest


Monslow, Walter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tomney, Frank


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K.(St. Pancras, N.)
Urwin, T. W.


Mulley, Rt. Mn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Varley, Eric G.


Murray, Albert
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin


Neal, Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Newens, Stan
Rowland, Christopher
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Sheldon, Robert
Wallace, George


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Norwood, Christopher
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Weitzman, David


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilkins, W. A.


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Oswald, Thomas
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Owen, Will
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Padley, Walter
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Page, Derek {King's Lynn)
Small, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Palmer, Arthur
Snow, Julian
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Solomons, Henry
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pargiter, G. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Winterbottom, R. E.


Parker, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pavitt, Laurence
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Woof, Robert


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stonehouse, John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stones, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Zilliacus, K.


Perry, Ernest G.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)



Popplewell, Ernest
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prentice, R. E.
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Mr. George Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Bryan, Paul
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Eden, Sir John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Emery, Peter


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Buxton, Ronald
Errington, Sir Eric


Astor, John
Campbell, Gordon
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey
Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John


Awdry, Daniel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fell, Anthony


Baker, W. H. K.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Balniel, Lord
Channon, H. P. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Chataway, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Barlow, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


Batsford, Brian
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bell, Ronald
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Gammans, Lady


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Cooper, A. E.
Gardner, Edward


Berkeley, Humphry
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gibson-Watt, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Bessell, Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Biggs- Davison, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bingham, R. M.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Sir Richard


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Crawley, Aidan
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Black, Sir Cyril
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Goodhart, Philip


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gower, Raymond


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Curran, Charles
Grant, Anthony


Box, Donald
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gresham Cooke, R.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dance, James
Grieve, Percy


Braine, Bernard
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dean, Paul
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir W alter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Doughty, Charles
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)







Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Royle, Anthony


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Russell, Sir Ronald


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McMaster, Stanley
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maddan, Martin (Hove)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hastings, Stephen
Maginnis, John E,
Sharples, Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Maitland, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Hay, John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sinclair, Sir George


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mathew, Robert
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Hendry, Forbes
Maude, Angus
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Higgins, Terence L.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hiley, Joseph
Mawby, Ray
Speir, Sir Rupert


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stainton, Keith


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony


Hooson, H. E.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hopkins, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hornby, Richard
Monro, Hector
Talbot, John E.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
More, Jasper
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, Sir William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, J, C.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thorneycroft, Rt, Hn. Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Thorpe, Jeremy


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Onslow, Cranley
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jopling, Michael
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Kilfedder, James A.
Peel, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hn. Sir Derek


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, John
Wall, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Walters, Dennis


Kitson, Timothy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene


Lagden, Godfrey
Pitt, Dame Edith
Weatherill, Bernard


Lambton, Viscount
Pounder, Rafton
Webster, David


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, J. M. L.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wise, A. R.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Longbottom, Charles
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Longden, Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


Loveys, Walter H.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


Lubbock, Eric
Ridsdale, Julian



Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Robson Brown, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Martin McLaren and


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Roots, William
Mr. Ian MacArthur.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Government's policies which have been directed towards

bringing to an end the steady rise in the cost of living which had gone on under the previous administration; and in particular welcomes the special and urgent provisions which have been made to meet the claims of those in greatest need".

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Bills may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND [MONEY]

Resolution reported.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to proposed increases in the quotas of the International Monetary Fund, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums required for the purpose

of paying, in connection with proposed increases, any subscriptions to the International Monetary Fund;
(b) the borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act 1939 and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing any sums to be so paid or for replacing any sums so paid.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PACKAGED GOODS)

10.33 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
I ask for approval of this Order with some reluctance. The need for it arises from what I can only describe as a defect in the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, which was not foreseen by any of us, neither the then Government nor those hon. Members who, like myself, took part in the Committee proceedings. If the House does not approve the Order, although I am sure that it will, a large number of shopkeepers will be in serious difficulties next week. They will almost certainly commit offences under the Act which may render them liable to prosecution proceedings. If some of my hon. Friends are interested in this, I should think that nearly every co-operative society faces this somewhat perilous prospect.
The defect to which I refer is in the timing of the appropriate Regulations which carry out the terms of the Act. These Regulations were made a year ago and come into operation on 31st July, Saturday of this week. From then on all the goods, mainly toilet preparations, soaps, detergents, paints, and so on, that are covered by this Order will have to be marked with a net weight or a net measure of the contents of the container.
As the present Regulations are framed, this requirement to mark the net weight or the net measure on the container applies both to manufactures and to retailers, and this means that manufactures are not required by the law to mark their products until the end of this week, although many firms have anticipated the deadline and have been marking net weights on their containers for some months past.
I think I should explain, in passing, that practically all these goods are being marked with net weights or net measures for the first time—the Regulations apply to these goods for the first time—so that there is in past experience of marking to draw on in this sphere. Because of this innovation, many manufacturers have been sticking to the strict letter of the

Regulations and, as far as I know, some of them have been supplying unmarked goods to buyers right up to last week, so that in an extreme case a shopkeeper may receive supplies of unmarked goods on Friday of this week, still within the terms of the Regulations, and if he sells them next Monday, still unmarked, he will break the law.
This situation was not foreseen during the passage of the Bill, nor indeed during the examination of the Regulations, and naturally enough the shopkeepers who face these difficulties, and perhaps prosecution, through no fault of their own, made representations to the Board of Trade to see whether we could help them out of their difficulties. If we had foreseen what has happened, I feel sure that we would have amended the Bill before it got on to the Statute Book to provide two dates foe the operation of the marking Regulations, an appropriate date for the manufacturers, and then a somewhat later date giving a few months grace to shopkeepers so that they could clear unmarked stocks which they obtained before the manufacturers' marking Order became operative.
This Order somewhat belatedly provides for this period of grace for shopkeepers, and for the reasons that I have explained I am sure that it will be approved by the House, but in view of some, if I may say so not quite well informed, criticisms of this Order which have appeared in some quarters, I should like to explain briefly why the Order is presented almost at the twelfth hour, and what its effect will be for the shopkeeper's customers.
First, on the question of timing, when representations were made by some trade associations to the previous Administration about a year ago, I think that there was then considerable doubt about whether the Act allowed what I might call anticipatory amendments to regulations that had not come into operation and it was decided to take no action for the time being because no one knew just how serious the situation might become for the retailers. I think that that decision was right, and indeed I took the same line on somewhat similar representations that were made to me some months ago, but it is now clear that many shopkeepers—perhaps thousands of them—will have unmarked goods in the range


of Schedule 7 of the Act on their shelves next Monday, and something has to be done about their difficulties.
Moreover, we have found that some trade associations have misinterpreted the original Regulations and have wrongly advised their members that they already have a year's grace, up to July 1966, in which to clear their unmarked stocks. This arises from misunderstanding paragraph 1(2) of the original Regulations. We have had to do something, and we have found that the way out of the legal difficulty is to amend the Regulations as soon as they come into operation, that is on Saturday morning when, if the House approves, I shall sign this Order.
I now turn to the consumer's angle on this. We have informed the Consumer Council on these issues and asked for its views. I know that the Council have considered different suggestions for solving the shopkeepers' problems, but it has reluctantly accepted that postponement of the marking date for shopkeepers is the only possible course which we can adopt. Therefore, the Council approves—but with real reluctance and regret—the action which we are taking in asking the House to approve the Order.
Manufacturers, of course, will have to mark the net weights and net measures on the containers of their products from Saturday, 31st July. They get no relief by this Order. A number of manufacturers have been marking their products for some months, and these manufacturers, I think, have a real sense of being unfairly treated by the Order. There is a wide range of properly marked goods in the shops already and, from Monday onwards, all new supplies to shops direct from manufacturers will have to be properly marked.
In a few months' time, all these goods on sale to the public will be marked with their net weights or net measures. It will depend on how quickly the shopkeepers can sell the unmarked goods which will have been supplied to them by the end of this week. As the Order gives a year's grace—the Act does not easily provide for a shorter period—it is confidently expected that the vast majority of shops and stores will have

cleared their unmarked stocks long before the Order expires.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I have listened with great interest to the explanation by the Minister of State of the necessity for the Order. Complaints have been made to me that it may not be possible for the shopkeepers concerned to guarantee to get rid of their stocks of these unmarked goods by the date mentioned in the Order, 31st July, 1966. Some of the goods which they will have to dispose of within this period are not goods which are necessarily sold quickly. I am thinking, in particular, of soap, which is very often kept in a small shop for a protracted period. If it is a large quantity of soap, it cannot be easily shifted.
I should like the Minister of State to tell me whether he is absolutely satisfied by the trade associations that this period is adequate. It would not have been difficult to provide that any goods which had been dispatched from the factory by 31st July, 1965, which had been pre-packed, could be sold after almost any period, provided that it is clearly seen that they have no net marks on them. It does not matter whether they are sold before the 31st July, 1966 or 1976. They are old stock.
I see no justification for having any limiting date by which the goods must be sold. Long before 31st July, 1966, people will get used to seeing marked on packs the net weight or measure of the article which is being sold. I cannot see the need for a limit at all. It would be adequate for any article dispatched from the factory before 31st July, 1965, to be disposed of at any time. No one will seriously suggest, I hope, that if this concession were given the manufacturers would take the risk of sending out prepacked goods without the correct figures on them. I am certain that no reputable manufacturer would do that. The fact that some goods are "sculling around" without the net weights marked on them is not relevant.
I cannot see the justification for the limit mentioned in the Order. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give further consideration to this matter with the object of amending the Order so that


people may sell these goods at any period. I hope—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot propose an Amendment at this stage. He can only argue that the Order ought to be withdrawn so that a new Order may come forward to meet the point he has made.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I apologise for not putting my point more clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not suggesting, when I used the word "amending", that the Order before us should be amended. I was suggesting that it be withdrawn, then amended and brought before the House in its amended form. I appreciate that we are unable to amend this Statutory Instrument so that the limiting date is not mentioned.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: If the proposition of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) were accepted, the fullest implementation of the implications of the Measure would be delayed for even longer than the period suggested by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Like some of my hon. Friends who are in that group which is representative of not only the Labour Party but also of the Co-operative Movement, I have given careful consideration to the Order. The Act was, in the view of my hon. Friends, a step forward in consumer protection, even though it did not go as far as some of us would have liked. Schedule 7 of the 1963 Act provides that a very wide range of goods must bear an indication of the quantity and must be adequately labelled. To indicate the scale of the goods involved in that wide range, it is well to remember that the Schedule covers lubricants, fertilisers, perfumery, toilet preparations, soap, ribbon, tape, sewing thread, pet foods, varnish, enamel, paint, detergents, polishes, cigarettes, cigars, antifreeze and postal stationery.
The inadequate labelling of pre-packed goods has resulted in the housewife, from the point of view of consumer protection, having been in a weak position for a long time. Many manufacturers and retailers adopted good labelling practices, even before the passage of the 1963 Act.

No hon. Member will deny, as the Minister of State pointed out, that shopkeepers with stocks of inadequately labelled goods on their shelves and in their storerooms will be inconvenienced if the Order is not carried. Indeed, if retailers are carrying such inadequately labelled stocks in such large quantities now, two years after the Act was passed, we should look carefully at why this position exists.
I suggest that the former Government, during their period of office and after the Act was passed, manufacturers and retailers—and, to a certain extent, the present Government—have been dilatory and apathetic in effectively carrying out this piece of legislation. After all, the Act received the Royal Assent on 31st July, 1963, although it did not lay down the actual manner in which goods had to be marked. That is one argument in favour of the manufacturers' and retailers' case for delaying this matter the fact that it took another year before the Weights and Measures (Marking) Regulations, 1964, were laid before Parliament, on 28th July, 1964.
My hon. Friend may say that it is not directly his responsibility, but perhaps hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite may explain why it took a whole year before the Regulations made under the Act could be carried out and why after a year's delay from July 1964 there were further representations from manufacturers, as suggested in recent letters to hon. Members from the Consumers' Association, but principally from the distributors and notably from the Multiple Shops Federation, who claimed that the situation was anomalous and would result in hardship to some retailers. We need further clarification as to what exactly was the nature of the anomalies.
So far as I am aware, the co-operative societies have made no formal representations pleading for delay of one year in the full implementation of the Act. From long experience of the movement, I know that the 13 million consumer members of the co-operative societies will be considerably inconvenienced as housewives and shoppers by having inadequately labelled goods on sale in our shops during the next year, which will be the case if this Order is carried this evening. After a further year of consultations and a year before the Regulations came out, we are to delay for


another year, so full implementation will take place three years after the passing of the Act.
We have heard tonight that goods may still be leaving warehouses inadequately labelled, two years after the Act was passed. I should like to know whether or not the alleged anomalies under the Act will be removed during the coming year and how much further delay there will be. If further representations, however and legitimate they may be, are made on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Exeter, and are given further consideration by the Board of Trade, possibilities of further delay are quite likely. It is true that, as my hon. Friend said, the Consumers' Council has made expressions of view on this problem, but he did not draw attention to the fact that the Council did not only refer to some difficulties involved for retailers but specifically regretted that the Board of Trade had not put enough pressure on the trades concerned to be ready to implement the Act on time.
One factor to which the Consumer Council drew attention was that the Board itself took a considerable time to bring out draft Regulations after the Act had been passed, thus cutting down the time which manufacturers had to get new labels on their goods. Did the Board of Trade publish notices concerning this matter in the trade Press? If so, where and on what scale? It is extremely important that the Board should make clear exactly what will be the position after the end of this month, because then both marked and unmarked goods will be in the shops. Some retailers may complain that they have a grievance. If the Order had not been brought in this evening retailers and manufacturers who are more conscientious in this matter may feel that they have a grievance because they have carried out the provisions of the Act and get no benefit, but may even be at a disadvantage.

Mr. John Hall: I am rather interested in the remark about a sense of grievance. I am not sure why a manufacturer or retailer should feel a sense of grievance for doing something which it is obviously right to do.

Mr. Rhodes: Some may feel that if they are dilatory in adopting the Regulations

they may get away with it, whereas those with a deep sense of consumer protection will feel that they have been penalised in a negative sense by acting in this way.
My last point is that this differentiation between goods marked and unmarked is, according to the Consumer Council, a serious matter, particularly in relation to cosmetics. I should like my hon. Friend to comment on this. We suffer a great deal from what I have called on previous occasions exploitation and misleading of consumers. Consumers are in need of protection. The Act would give them a large measure of that protection, but I believe that the present difficulties are not entirely the responsibility—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman before that he must not get outside the Regulations. All the rest may be very interesting, but it has nothing to do with what is before us.

Mr. Rhodes: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point which I was about to make was that I appreciate that the difficulties in carrying out the Act, which have led to bringing forward this Order, are not entirely the present Government's responsibility. They are largely the result of the delaying period of one year before the Regulations were issued under the Act, but there have been nine months during which there could have been an acceleration in carrying out the processes of the Act. Whilst I feel that at the moment, the situation being what it is, the Order must be approved tonight, we must give approval with considerable regret.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Rhodes: I was in the middle of my concluding remarks. I was about to say that many consumer organisations feel very much let down in that the Order has become necessary. Whilst I make my remarks not by way of any criticism of my hon. Friend, who I know has this subject dearly at heart, I emphasise that it is with regret that we must accept the Order.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), who was not with us when we put the Act on the Statute Book, at least agrees with its main purpose. I think that I am the only Member present who was a signatory of the Act, although the present Minister of State. Board of Trade, played a considerable part in its passage through the House. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is right in saying that there is a basic defect in the Act which makes the Order necessary. The particular problem was in my mind at the time of anticipating the delay between an Order being made compulsory on a manufacture and the time which the goods would take to go through the trade before they reached the shops.
I visualised that the time given to the manufacturer at the point when it was then compulsory for him to mark the goods—otherwise he would be committing an offence—was sufficiently in advance for him to be able to get his stocks into the trade through the wholesalers and retailers. Certain products named in the Schedule might be moved slowly by the small wholesaler or small retailer, and individual retailers might have found themselves with a certain residual stock left at a point where it became an offence to sell goods which were not marked with the net weight. But this would not mean that they had to destroy their stocks and accept a complete loss. At the worst, they would have to get the stuff out, measure or weigh it, and put on a sticky label on showing the net weight, which is rather different from having one's whole stock, so to speak, condemned.
Therefore, even if the Order had not been brought in, it would not have been quite so oppressive a state of affairs as, I suspect, representatives of the trade have suggested. Those of us who have done our stint at the Board of Trade know how persuasive these delegations can be. They bring tears to the eyes of Ministers—as politicians we are sensitive in these matters—but, more than that, they bring tears to the eyes of one's officials, which is a much tougher proposition.
I am not absolutely satisfied that the strictures of the hon. Member for

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East regarding lack of diligence are well founded. The year after the passing of the Act and before the Regulations were approved by both Houses of Parliament was largely devoted to consultations with various trades. The hon. Gentleman read from Schedule 7 the references to some products and he left out certain others, no doubt, for the purpose of brevity, but ii have it here, and it is a very miscellaneous range of products. The Board of Trade took some time and had considerable consultations, and, from the moment when the Act was passed, or even from the moment when it was published, the trade knew that it would have to mark its goods. People in the trade knew broadly what would happen, although they understood that there might be some alterations in Committee, and certainly after the Royal Assent they knew what the scheme was. The only question was the precise manner in which it should be done, and I well recall some of the discussions about how one marked small bottles of scent, for example, which are one of the items covered by Schedule 7 to which the Order applies.
It was not a wasted year. People in the trade knew that they would have to mark, and they were being consulted on the precise manner of doing it. Subsequently, they have had a further year, and, as both the Minister and the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many of the more forward-looking manufacturers have gone ahead and done it so that, through the normal course of trade, a lot of stock in retailers' hands will be ready marked for the day when the Regulations come into force. As I have said, there is just the problem of residual stock, but one must draw a line somewhere, and occasionally one has to be a little harsh or abrasive on a trade. This is part of consumer protection. The most that would be required would be for the shopkeeper to weigh the products. I know that scent would have to be dealt with somewhat differently, but for the majority of products weighing and marking would be fairly straightforward.
I know the Minister of State far too well to realise that he would not have given way on this unless he and his officials were persuaded that there was a very good reason. I shall not, therefore, oppose the Order, but I want him to explain why it is necessary to hold back for a year. I should


have thought that six months, or until the end of the year, would have been sufficient. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, with this interim year in which the manufacturers are having to mark and with the further year in which the retailers and wholesalers are holding back, this Act for consumer protection, under Schedule 7, will not begin to give protection until the year proposed in the Order has been completed. The Minister of State and I have had too many discussions, in public and in private, for me to doubt his sincerity or his devotion to consumer protection, but I wonder why he found it necessary to give as long as 12 months' grace. I should have been inclined to be a little tougher.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: We have at least one measure of agreement tonight, and that is the measure of agreement on both sides that the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, designed to give additional protection to the consumer, was a good Act.
On the other hand, the Minister said that there were some slight defects in the Act which had come to light recently, and that is why we have this Order before us. I am not at all sure that I accept that there are defects. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has given the view that there is not a defect in the Act. If there is, perhaps it is due to the fact that the then Opposition were not so diligent in their examination of Bills before the House as the present Opposition are.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is fascinating, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Instrument before the House.

Mr. Hall: I accept your guidance, Mr Deputy-Speaker, but I think that I have made the point that I wished to.
There are one or two things about this matter which puzzle me a little. The Minister said, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), that some manufacturers are still supplying pre-packed Schedule 7 commodities without the requisite markings. This means that

a large number of manufacturers must already have started marking their products. I find it hard to understand why the manufacturers, the distributors and the wholesalers and retailers did not get together on this some time ago, knowing that they were bound at this date to retail goods which bore the requisite markings. I should have thought that the retailer and wholesaler organisations could have made it clear to the manufacturers that they could receive only properly marked goods because they would be bound by the Act, subject to certain penalties, to provide goods properly marked with quantities. So I am puzzled why at a rather late stage the trade has had to ask the Board of Trade for this additional time.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, I wonder whether a year is not a little too long and whether six months would not be sufficient. Nevertheless, I appreciate that as it took practically a year to introduce regulations giving the form of marking and so on, it is possible that even manufacturers marking their goods after that date might be selling goods which could remain on the shelves for longer than the following 12 months and that some persons might find themselves in difficulty if the strict letter of the law were enforced now. For that reason, I would not suggest to my hon. Friends that we should oppose the Order.
However, I should like to ask a question which was raised in the other place when this matter was debated. It was suggested that publicity should be given nearer to the time that it will be necessary to mark all Schedule 7 goods and that it should be stated quite clearly who is responsible for so doing if they are not already marked. It was agreed in another place that some consideration should be given to that. Probably one of the problems is that not enough publicity has been given to the requirements of the Act in trade and other papers, and perhaps in some cases this has taken people unawares, because often people do not take as much notice of new Acts and regulations as they should.
With just that one question to the Minister, I think we must support the Order. Otherwise there may be some hardship and difficulty caused to retailers, possibly through no fault of their own.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Darling: If I may, with permission, reply to the points raised, I should like to deal with the last point first. We shall probably have to enforce an Order at the end of this period to indicate the manner in which the markings are to be put on the containers. During this period, even without this amending Order, the manufacturers can put the markings on in any way they like. That is obvious, because they have to reorganise all their printing arrangements and so on. By July, 1966, markings will have to be effected according to the terms that have been laid down in the Act and the Regulations. At that point, when we come to deal with that situation, we shall certainly carry out the suggestion which was made to us in another place. We shall put out the appropriate press notices and give all the publicity that we can to inform everybody concerned that they must mark everything according to the manner laid down in the Regulations—size of type, display of type, and so on.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) that this will not be done at the end of the period—July, 1966—but that those concerned will be informed in plenty of time beforehand, and, if they have clearance sales to get rid of unmarked stocks, then this will benefit both the shopkeepers and the customers.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: But at the end of the period they may well have some of the goods which have left the factory marked but not in the way they will have to be marked after the end of the period. Will they be given any grace to get rid of these items?

Mr. Darling: Yes. The obligation will be on the manufacturers from that point onwards. We can do both operations at the same time, and the suggestion made in another place will be carried out.
There is another slight defect in the Act, discovered when we came to deal with the situation. Schedule 7 covers such a comprehensive range of goods that, although we do not need this Order for some of the goods in it because the manufacturers concerned have made arrangements beforehand, we have to cover the whole range. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price)

and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) said, this is a comprehensive list of products.
We are primarily concerned with such things as toilet preparations. Here, of course, there would be enormous difficulty if we followed the suggestion, which we discussed in the Board of Trade for a considerable time, of putting an obligation upon the retailer to mark unmarked products—if a person starts buying toilet preparations on any scale after Monday he will find that the quantities are marked in most cases in metric measurements—a concession we gave in order to stimulate the export trade to the continent.
The measures are so different and cover such a wide range that, quite frankly, the retailer would have enormous difficulty in getting from all the manufacturers concerned the weights of all the different products. How much talcum powder is in a tin? How much perfume is in a bottle? What is the weight of bath salts? And so on. One can imagine the poor retailer trying to find out—he cannot very well empty the containers and then put the contents back. He would have to keep shop assistants fully employed on nothing else for months until everything was properly marked.
We bring forward this Order with great reluctance. I took the view, perhaps for too long, that we should, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh did when faced with the same situation, stand firm by the original Regulations and not give way. But when we saw more clearly the difficulties that retailers would be up against, we reluctantly came to the conclusion that we had to produce the Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East wanted to know how many manufacturers of Schedule 7 goods had done the job before they were in a sense legally required to do it. I cannot give him an arithmetical answer, but quite a number of them have done the job and I agree—I have said it myself before—that they have a sense of grievance, quite rightly, that this Order should be brought forward in order to cover the other manufacturers who have not been so forthcoming and who have not responded to the terms of the regulations in advance of the deadline laid down.
But we also discovered, as I have said, that quite a number of traders have been led astray by their misinterpretation of the original Regulations. Paragraph 1(2) of the original Regulations said:
Before 31st July 1966, nothing in these Regulations shall apply to the manner of marking any container which left the premises at which it was filled or otherwise made up for sale before 31st July 1965.
We were surprised to find that, in spite of all the press notices which were put out and for which the hon. Member for Eastleigh was responsible, and the further information given to the press increasing the publicity about this matter, quite a number of members of the trades concerned, manufacturers and so on, interpreted that to mean that they did not need to mark net weight or measurement of the goods until 31st July, 1966. Of course, what it means and clearly says is that the manner of marking, which the Regulations themselves go on to define, shall not apply until 31st July, 1966. For this year they can mark their containers any way they like. For the reason I gave, this will help them to get their printing presses and containers, packages and so on, into line with the Regulations.
My hon. Friend also said that we had been dilatory, both the hon. Member for Eastleigh and I, in carrying out the terms of the Act. If he will read the long discussions which we had in Committee about how the terms of the Act should be carried out, he will see that we discussed at great length the amount of time which should be given to manufacturers to alter their packages and packaging. It is not an easy job. We did not want anybody to lose money over this and we did not want any packages to be scrapped. Manufacturers order packages in bulk and we discussed with them the manner of marking and so on. The time which was taken to produce the first Regulations was not unreasonable. There is some complaint about the amount of time taken to produce this amending Order, but the reason for that is that we were reluctant to produce the Order and were more or less forced to do so in the end.
My hon. Friend asked how long it would take to clear the unmarked stocks. We have asked about this and there are

different views in different trades, but my own guess from the discussions which I have had is that in most shops, apart from those in country districts where stock tends to stay on the shelves a little longer, stocks in most of these lines will be cleared in a very few months, and although the consumer will lose something in buying goods which are not properly marked, I do not think that the period will be so excessive as to cause any alarm or despondency.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) asked why the Order could not be for less than twelve months. We, too, asked that question. Our legal advisers say that under the terms of the Act—I do not know whether this is another defect—it would be difficult to produce an Order which did not run for twelve months. However, perhaps this is something which we can discuss on another occasion. Of course, it would not be possible between now and 31st July to make an amending Order.
I think that I have more or less answered the hon. Member for Exeter. Goods still on the shop shelves could be marked by the retailer, and we can help him in that by giving him the actual weights of the goods concerned; or he might have a clearance sale and get rid of the whole lot.
It is not the retailer who is responsible for the marking of the goods. It is the job of the manufacturer and the retailer has to take what is given to him. With such things as perfumes—I do not know whether the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) can help us here—when the shapes of the bottles and so on seem to change quite considerably and where lines have been discontinued, and apparently they are discontinued quite quickly—it is impossible for the retailer to find out what measure was inside the bottle. In those circumstances, we cannot put an obligation upon him to mark unmarked goods himself.
I repeat that we can bring this Order forward very reluctantly. The delay is due to the fact that we were reluctant about it. We did not want to bring it forward and we waited till the last moment to see if we could deal with the problem in another way. Unfortunately, this is the only practical way in which


we can deal with the shopkeepers' difficulties, and therefore I ask the House to give us approval for the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

11.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill goes a little further than the normal Consolidation Bill. Therefore there is one matter to which I think I should invite the attention of the House. If the House will look at the Long Title of the Bill it will see that this is described as:
An Act to consolidate the National Insurance Acts 1946 and 1964, certain provisions made by statutory instrument thereunder, and certain related enactments.
That is why I say that it goes a little further than the Consolidation Bills with which we are concerned later this evening.
I have to invite the attention of the House—and it is only right that I should do so—to the Report of the Joint Committee, which said:
The Committee are of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
They go on to say:
The Committee are further of the opinion that there is a point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn, vizt., whether it is desirable to incorporate existing statutory instruments into a consolidating Act having regard to the fact that these instruments are subject to a different form of parliamentary supervision than Acts of Parliament, and that the right to challenge the validity of an instrument may not survive its transformation into one of the provisions of a consolidating Act.
This was discussed at some length in another place, and although, as yet, there has been no challenge here, I think it is right to call the attention of the House to that expression of opinion by the Committee. We are dealing here with a very unusual legislative state of affairs.

Some years ago there were three Acts of Parliament which covered, to some extent, the same ground. There was the Family Allowances Act, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and the National Insurance Act. I do not want to go into many technicalities, but since then we have had the National Insurance Act, 1959, and there is a provision under which the Regulations made under that Act apply to the Family Allowances Acts. Therefore, we are dealing with this rather complex legislative state of affairs.
In those circumstances, and since we are dealing with a great many Statutory Instruments, which hon. Members will find set out in Schedule 12 of the Bill now before the House, it has been necessary, if we were to achieve any worthwhile measure of consolidation, to consolidate not merely the statutory provisions applying to National Insurance, but also the provisions of the subsidiary legislation as well. The House will appreciate that Regulations made in pursuance of a Statute are as much a part of the law as is the Statute itself. There are these differences, that Regulations have to be laid. Sometimes they have merely to be laid, sometimes they have to be laid subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in this House. There is also the difference that a Regulation is always open to challenge by the courts on the grounds that it is ultra vires, beyond the powers which Parliament intended to confer upon the Minister concerned.
There is no exact precedent where there has been quite so much subsidiary legislation to be embodied, and, in the unique circumstances, it has been thought right to make the particular provision which hon. Members will find in Clause 116 of the Bill. That refers in subsection (1) to the Regulations specified in Schedule 12, and then provides in subsection (2):
Notwithstanding the reproduction of the regulations aforesaid as provisions of this Act, any question as to the validity of those provisions may be determined as though they were contained in regulations made under the powers under which the regulations they reproduce were respectively made.
What that means is that, although we are embodying the Regulations in a Statute, nevertheless we preserve the right of anyone who feels aggrieved and wishes to challenge the validity of those Regulations to go to court and say that they are ultra vires the Act as originally passed.


I hope that the House will accept that it is a most exceptional provision. It is designed to preserve the rights of the subject in respect of any Regulation which now is embodied in Statutory form.
I have said that it is not purely a consolidation Bill in the ordinary sense. Nevertheless, it does consolidate a very important part of our law. The work of consolidating our Statute law, which I think everyone welcomes, is going rapidly forward. There are a number of consolidation measures which follow and for which the approval of the House will be invited in, I hope, a very short time. But, as I say, because of the particular passage that I have read in the Report of the Committee, I feel that I am bound to draw those matters to the attention of the House.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I have taken the precaution of having beside me the Ruling of Mr. Speaker as to how far we can go in the discussion of consolidation Bills, and I will endeavour to keep well within it.
The Bill has some very considerable difficulties which the hon. and learned Gentleman has described to the House. He has read the Third Report of the Joint Committee which dealt with the Bill, and they have drawn the attention of the House very clearly to the fact that it is not a consolidation Bill in the sense that it consolidates previous Statutes but is a consolidation Bill in the sense that it includes within it the consolidation of Statutory Instruments.
It is common knowledge to the House that Statutory Instruments themselves are frequently consolidated into one consolidating Statutory Instrument, but the introduction of them by promotion, as it were, from Statutory Instrument law to Statute law is quite a novel idea, as was said many times in the course of the evidence given to the Joint Committee.
The Clauses which thus embody Statutory Instruments are some of the most important Clauses of the Bill. Clause 12 deals with the recovery by an employer of an insured person's flat-rate contributions; Clause 40, the increase of benefit for children, so far as subsections (1) and (2) are concerned; Clause 43, the increase of benefit for adult dependants;

Clause 49, the disqualification for or suspension of benefit; a very substantial part of Part IV, which deals with the determination of certain questions by the Minister and the determination of certain matters by insurance officers, local tribunals or the Commissioners; Clause 77, the constitution of local tribunals; Clause 95, the recovery of contributions on prosecutions under the Act; and finally Clause 97, which provides certain decisions are to be conclusive for the purpose of proceedings under the Act. These are important parts of this consolidating Measure. They are parts which previously were contained within Statutory Instruments and are now converted into Clauses of a Bill.
If I might comment further on the importance of these, Clause 40(1), for example, which has previously a Statutory Instrument, deals with the increase of benefit for children. It states:
Subject to subsections (5) and (6) of this section and to sections 41(4) and 42 of this Act, the weekly rate of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, a maternity allowance, a retirement pension or a widow's allowance shall, for any period for which the beneficiary has a family which includes a child or children, be increased in respect of that child or each respectively of those children by the appropriate amount specified in relation to the benefit in question in column 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule 3 to this Act.
This is one of the most vitally important things of the whole system of National Insurance. Previously, it was included in a Ministerial Order, which had the flexibility of being able to be altered from time to time. Because, however, these Statutory Instruments are now included in a consolidation Bill, we in this House are precluded from discussing their merits or substance.
It would have been all very well had they been put in a normal Bill, which could have been debated in this House before they were promoted from Statutory Instrument law to statute law. This part of the law might well have become law, however, without any debate in this House. It might have become law by being embodied in a Statutory Instrument subject only to negative procedure and no Prayer might have been made against that Statutory Instrument at the time. So that at no time might the merits of these Clauses have been debated in this House, and yet they can become law in this form.
To promote these Statutory Instruments to the status of statute law, as is done by the Bill, raises several constitutional problems. Promoting them in a way in which they cannot be debated seems to be something like Parliamentary trickery. The normal method would have been to put them into an ordinary Bill and then for the House to decide whether they were subjects which it wished should remain flexible in Ministerial Order form or whether they should be converted into permanent law. If that ordinary Bill were passed by the House, then would follow the stage to incorporate it in a consolidation Bill.
This method has come about because in 1946 there was lack of Parliamentary time in passing the National Insurance Bill and a great deal of it was left to Ministerial Order. That is not unknown, whatever Government may be in office. An enabling Act may leave a great deal to be done by Statutory Instrument. When that is done, however, the Regulations are flexible and can be amended from time to time by further order. Furthermore, those Regulations can be challenged in the courts as being ultra vires. It can be questioned whether the Minister had power to make the Regulations.
To overcome the first of those points in this consolidation Bill, I notice that whenever the hitherto Statutory Instrument law is introduced into the Bill, power has been reserved to the Minister to alter it. We are used to that in Bills of this nature and I cannot seriously complain that the Minister is reserving power to alter the Act, except, perhaps, that it should be done by affirmative procedure rather than by negative procedure. But that is quite a normal process, and to that extent it has preserved the existing law. These Clauses have remained to some extent flexible by preserving to the Minister the right to alter them by Order.
But to overcome the second point, that if these were still Orders the courts could question whether it was within the power of the Minister to make them, there is this entirely novel device of Clause 116 which the Solicitor-General has mentioned as being a most exceptional provision. It is a most exceptional provision. It means that for the first time in the history of Parliament the courts can say

that some section of an Act is ultra vires. This is a new constitutional point. We are driven to this what I might call constitutional abortion by the device of consolidating Statutes and Statutory Instruments.
On the merits of the contents of the Statutory Instruments, that may be the right thing to do. It may be correct at this stage to make those permanent. I am precluded in this debate from discussing the merits of these Clauses. My complaint is that this is being done without precedent, and it is a bad thing. The Government cannot do it in the normal way of putting these Statutory Instruments into a normal Bill because their programme is overloaded as it is, and they would not have time to put this normal Bill through. We all want to hasten consolidation, but not at the expense of the rights of this House to debate Clauses which are to become law.
If this kind of consolidation becomes popular with any Government, there is a danger that it may be used for the wrong purpose altogether. What more easy than for a Government in a hurry to enact something, to pass an enabling Act, leaving most of the meat of the Act to Ministerial Order, then putting the Orders through, perhaps with the negative procedure, so that they may never be debated in this House, and then putting those Orders into a consolidation Bill? This is a simple way of forcing law on to the Statute Book without proper debate in this House.
In another place it was pleaded, rather as the Solicitor-General pleaded today, that this was unique, that no other case like this had ever come up before. It was pleaded that the National Insurance Act was unique, and therefore a unique form of consolidation had to be undertaken. If that is the case, I ask the Solicitor-General to give the House two undertakings. First, that he will see that new Statutory Orders are initiated to make a report on this to the House from the Joint Committee essential. In this case the Joint Committee has properly reported this to the House, and that is why we are able to consider it, and why it has been drawn to our attention. I hope that we can make it an obligation on any Joint Committee to report to the House if this effort is tried again.
Secondly, if we are to consolidate in this form, that a Bill will be brought in as quickly as possible to remove Clause 116 from this consolidation Bill. This will enable the House to consider whether it wishes the courts to have power to declare that sections of an Act of Parliament are ultra vires. In short, it will give the House an opportunity to consider whether it is right that the contents of Statutory Instruments should be embodied permanently in a consolidation Act.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman would give us an assurance that it is the intention to bring in a Bill eventually to eliminate Clause 116, this novel and entirely unconstitutional provision, we should feel satisfied to let this consolidation Bill go through. As a consolidation Measure, it is admirable. If I may offer congratulations humbly to the Joint Committee, the Parliamentary draftsmen and the Parliamentary Counsel, from the point of view of consolidating the law, it is brilliant. But from the point of view of setting a bad precedent for the future and producing an extraordinary constitutional position in Clause 116, it ought to be opposed.

11.40 p.m.

Sir Herbert Butcher: There is a matter concerned with the Bill on which I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I doubt whether the Preamble to the Bill is in itself correct. The Preamble says that its purpose is:
… to consolidate the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1964, certain provisions made by statutory instrument thereunder, and certain related enactments.
As the Solicitor-General has indicated, the provisions go considerably further than that, but the introduction of Clause 116 in which subsection (2) appears, which, as he properly explained, is introduced for that purpose. I suggest that, because of the introduction of Clause 116 into the Bill, the Preamble is, in itself, wrong, and the right Preamble is the one which appears in Erskine May on page 554, namely, "to consolidate and amend" the law dealing with these matters. This is an important point, Mr. Speaker, because you and your predecessors have given considerable Rulings about what may and may not be discussed on consolidation Bills.
But if the Preamble were drawn in a different manner from that to which I referred in Erskine May, I believe that when the Bill had received its Second Reading, it might be capable of being amended in the way indicated by my hon. Friend. This is a technical point, which I find it difficult, as a layman, to make, but, if the Preamble is out of order, it appears to me that there might be a case for withdrawing the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: This is obviously troublesome, because of some element of novelty. The idea of consolidating into one statute law part of which is contained in Statutory Instruments is not a novelty, but the extent of it here is. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, the second subsection of Clause 116 is, as far as I know, a complete novelty. I cannot accede to the hon. Member's argument, for this reason. Here the Joint Committee is working under a Statute which is concerned solely with pure consolidation. They have certified to us by their report that this is pure consolidation, and, pursuing that argument, it seems that the second subsection—I did not hear the Solicitor-General's argument—is precisely to secure that result, namely, that the Bill, as it is presented to us, is pure consolidation, without amendment, because it preserves the existing right which exists under the existing law. That is why I cannot go with the hon. Gentleman about his argument.

Sir H. Butcher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and I would not dream of disputing your Ruling in any way, except, if I may, to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, that this is something quite unusual, in providing by this consolidation that the courts can challenge an Act of Parliament. It seems an unusual departure from our common law.

Mr. Speaker: I follow that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument. That is an argument about which, constitutionally, his remedy is to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. But in so far as the hon. Gentleman addressed a point of order to me, I do not think that his last point touches it, and the answer which I gave holds.

Sir H. Butcher: The alternative appears to be between, on the one hand, asking


the Solicitor-General for an assurance that proper steps will be taken to see that this sort of thing does not occur again and that this will be put right and, on the other, opposing the Second Reading of the Bill so that it may be brought forward in a different form.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I thoroughly welcome the Bill as a brilliant exercise in consolidating a difficult part of the law. I also welcome the consolidation into the Bill of the Statutory Instruments which have been passed over many years and which appear to have worked well. I congratulate the Solicitor-General on this device.
At the same time, I am somewhat concerned about Clause 116(2) in that it appears to infringe the sovereign powers of Parliament because, by this proposed enactment, it seems that Parliament is denying its sovereignty in that it is allowing the courts to question the validity of an Act.
These Statutory Instruments were made from time to time on the authority of various Acts of Parliament. Whether they went through by the affirmative or negative procedure seems to be a matter of little importance. Once they were approved by Parliament, or laid upon the Table for the appropriate time, they had all the force of enactments. It may be that while they were Statutory Instruments the courts had the power to discuss whether they were intra vires or ultra vires, but once they are contained in an Act, consolidating or not, it seems that they have all the force and effect of an Act.
Since Clause 116 (2) appears to be in some way denying the sovereignty of Parliament, I urge the Solicitor-General to consider whether this is desirable in future. I thoroughly agree with the incorporation of Statutory Instruments in an Act, but is this the right way to do it? I agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that a Measure should be introduced at the earliest possible moment to get rid of that subsection, which appears to be wholly undesirable. I also agree that serious consideration should be given to the method of dealing with consolidating Bills in future which contain provisions of this sort.

11.49 p.m.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: All hon. Members will be grateful to the Solicitor-General for the courteous way in which he explained what lies behind this consolidation Measure.
I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) when he said that he would like to see Clause 116 removed from the Bill. It is important, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, that the Clause should remain so that people have the right to go to the courts if the Orders to which reference is made in the 12th Schedule were ultra vires by the Minister concerned. However, I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider introducing a Bill to regularise the position in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby described, although I urge him not to remove Clause 116 from the Bill unless the power is given to the individual to question the validity of the Regulations.
This is a complicated Measure and few hon. Members fully understand it. Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the various Statutory Instruments referred to in Schedule 12 are not Statutory Instruments scheduled only to run for a limited period? If they were scheduled to run only for a limited period, in Clause 116 something to that effect should be made clear. If they are to be permanent I see no reason for them to be covered by the Clause. I should like to have an assurance that none of these Regulations were made for a limited period only.

11.51 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I speak again by leave of the House to answer points made by hon. Members opposite. I gather that the Bill is generally welcome to all hon. Members. I think the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said it was a most valuable Measure of consolidation. With that I think we would all agree.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said quite correctly that this Bill embodies the idea of statutory instruments being promoted into statutory form. He said that that was a novel idea. It is not entirely novel. There are certain precedents. There was the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948, and a similar Act


for Scotland in 1949, both of which included certain Sections which owed their origin to Regulations and those Regulations were embodied in the Statutes. I freely admit that this Measure goes somewhat further in that direction than those earlier Statutes, but, even supposing that this is a novel idea, I suggest that it is a very good idea. The hon. Member and I have had to struggle with Statutory Instruments and Regulations throughout our professional lives. I think he would agree that it is sometimes thoroughly vexatious to have to find law in a Statute and then in the various instruments made in pursuance of the statute. It is far better, not only for the legal profession but also for the general public, to be able to find the whole law on a subject in one instrument, preferably in one statute.

Mr. Graham Page: I go all the way with the Solicitor-General on this. My complaint is on their being inserted in a consolidation Bill which the House cannot debate on its merits. If they were inserted in an ordinary Bill it would be all right.

The Solicitor-General: I think the hon. Member would agree so far that when we have, as here, a very considerable body of law which has been built up over the years partly by Statutes which have been passed through Parliament in the ordinary way and partly by Statutory Instruments made in pursuance of those Statutes, and those subordinate Instruments have been in force for a considerable time, it is an admirable thing if we can embody it all in one statute so that it is not necessary first to look at the Act of Parliament and then at the various Regulations which from time to time have been made there-under.
The hon. Member went on to say that we are embodying in this Statute certain Regulations which have not been debated in the sense that we have had a Second Reading, Committee stage and the rest, but all these Regulations could have been debated if anyone had wished to do so. I do not say that all, but most were subject to the negative procedure and, if not, they could have been raised in this House. All these Regulations have been in force for a considerable time. No one has taken any opportunity to challenge them and

no one so far as I know has objected to them in any way.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Suppose that the House had taken advantage of every occasion, how many hours would that have taken?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot answer that. I am saying that we have Regulations the existence of which is well-known to hon. Members and to those concerned outside the House. It frequently happens that Regulations are challenged. I have challenged them myself and I am sure that the hon. Member has challenged them also. But these Regulations either have not been challenged at all or else they have survived Parliamentary challenge, which means that they have been approved by one or other House of Parliament. Therefore we have this considerable body of the law which has been in existence over a considerable period of time and which we are consolidating in a single statute.
The whole objection taken has been taken to Clause 116, that is the provision which I have said already is without precedent, as far as I know, enabling these particular provisions to be challenged in a court. It seems to me to be a wholly desirable provision. We are not derogating in any way from the sovereignty of Parliament. We are merely providing in a Statute that certain provisions shall be open to challenge in a court. If we do not insert this provision it will mean that we shall be taking away from any person who may be aggrieved by these Regulations the extremely valuable right, which he has at present, and that when we are dealing in any form with delegated legislation it should be open to any citizen to go to court and say that it is going outside the intentions of Parliament and is exceeding the powers which Parliament intended to confer.
This right of access to the courts when one is dealing with subordinate legislation is one of the safeguards of the liberty of the subject. When, in the phrase used by the hon. Member for Crosby, we are promoting subordinate legislation into Statute law it is desirable, if we are not to derogate the rights of the subject, that we should put this right into the law. This is why the Clause is put in the Bill. We


may never have to repeat it, but I say that it is a salutary provision which the House should approve.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Howie.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that we can let the Bill go through without some debate, because there are the same problems in a different form under this Bill, which is the second in the code of five Consolidation Bills, the first of which, the National Insurance Bill, we have just dealt with. A very similar trouble arises with this Bill, which shows what a mess the Government may get into if they continue on the lines indicated by the Solicitor-General in his answer to the previous debate.
This Bill again deals with Statute law which was previously in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts and converts it into this new-semi-Statute law which we were discussing on the previous Bill. I will explain what I mean by referring to one or two of the Clauses in this Bill. I take as an example Clause 3(7):
An employer shall be entitled to recover from an insured person, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Insurance Act"—
that is, Clause 12 of the National Insurance Bill which we have just discussed. This was a Section in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and was, therefore, Statute law. It has been consolidated

now by reference back to the National Insurance Bill, Clause 12, so that in this case Statute law in the Industrial Injuries Act is demoted to semi-Statute law created in what will become the National Insurance Act. It is the opposite process. In the previous Bill, Statutory Instruments were embodied as part of statute law, with the proviso that the courts may say that they are ultra vires. In this case, what was previously Statute law has been converted into a provision in the National Insurance Bill subject to the declaration of a court that it may be ultra vires.
This causes just as much trouble constitutionally as the other process. It is really a blot on the consolidation which is taking place in these five Bills, a form of consolidation which we are all happy to see and which has been carried out very efficiently except for these precedents which may cause grave difficulty hereafter.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has referred to only one provision, Clause 3(7), and, in effect, he says that we are downgrading a statutory provision here and making it subject to Regulation. The short answer is that the Section in the Industrial Injuries Act as it now exists is already subject to amendment by Regulations under the National Insurance Act; so we are not making any substantive change in the law in that respect.

Mr. Page: But the Solicitor-General is applying Clause 116 in the National Insurance Bill, which we have just discussed. I did not mention other Clauses, just as important, if not more so, for example, Clause 35, which has the same effect, that is, demotion and subject to being declared ultra vires by the courts.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I must put on record that there is in this Bill the same system of demotion. As a result of reference back, something which was previously statute law is now to be made subject to being declared ultra vires by the courts.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL [Lords]

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — STATUTE LAW REVISION (CONSEQUENTIAL REPEALS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I just wish to call attention to the fact that the Bill is not really a consolidation Bill but is consequential on the other consolidation Bills. It is really what it calls itself—a statute law revision Bill. To that extent it alters the law in that it repeals a large number of Statutes, although it will not be an alteration of the law once the five Bills of the code come into operation.
But it is a little difficult to see how the general ruling about consolidation Bills affect a Statute law revision Bill of this sort or to what extent we are bound by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about discussing only whether there should be consolidation or not. However, I do not wish to go through the whole Schedule of the Bill and comment on the repeals.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what is meant by my Ruling. I have not ruled about a statute law revision Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I should have thought that this Bill would have warranted some word from the Solicitor-General, because it is not altogether a satisfactory consolidation Bill. The Long Title says that it is an Act to consolidate the Land Clauses Acts as applied by Part I of Schedule 2 of the 1946 Act, and for certain other enactments, and to repeal certain provisions of the Land Clauses Acts. By that means it leaves a substantial part of the Land Clauses Acts still on the Statute Book. The Bill only partially consolidates them. Certain Sections of the Land Clauses Acts are reproduced in this consolidation Bill, and yet they are not repealed. They still remain in order to be applied to other subjects.
If I understand this consolidation Bill correctly, it consolidates only compulsory purchase by local authorities and Government Departments. Any other authority which may desire to gain compulsory purchase powers must either look to this Bill or adopt the Land Clauses Acts. This seems to me an unsatisfactory form of consolidation. I should have thought that it would have been far better to do away with the Land Clauses Acts altogether and have a completely consolidating Act.
The other way in which I think that is unsatisfactory is that it seems to cut across the Land Compensation Act, 1961. That was a consolidation Measure dealing with compensation. Compensation and compulsory purchase are so closely tied together that I should have thought that it would have been better to have them all


in one consolidation Measure. Indeed, in practice I have found it difficult to refer to the Land Compensation Act, 1961, in that there are many gaps in it as a consolidation Measure. This Compulsory Purchase Bill fills in a number of those gaps—not even all of them—and it would have been much clearer to the person who has to refer to this type of legislation—local authorities, Government Departments and ordinary lawyers in practice—if we could have had it all in one Bill dealing with compulsory purchase and compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not seem able to entice the Solicitor-General to his feet. I should have thought that this Bill needed a little introduction to the House because normally, when consolidating, we are consolidating Acts which are a matter of history. This Measure is probably unique, because it is consolidating Acts which are not very old—the 1959 and the 1965 Acts.
Indeed, as I read this Measure, it is so premature that it will not come into operation until certain provisions of the 1965 Act have come into operation. It is consolidating before an Act which it consolidates has wholly come into force.
I gather that the reasons for it are to provide for international convention and also to correct the structure of the 1959 Act, which has been rather knocked about by the 1965 Act. As such, it is welcome and I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman could have given it a little blessing.

12.11 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I readily respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. This, of course,

is purely a consolidation Measure. It has been approved by the Joint Committee and I should not have thought that it raised any difficulties of principle. It is true that we are not dealing with legislation going back over a long period, but there cannot, of course, be any general rule about consolidation Measures. They are generally desirable, when we are dealing with matters, as we are here, of no little complexity, in order to confine the law in one Statute. That is all that this Bill is designed to bring about.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL SALARIES CONSOLIDATION BILL [Lords]

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This Bill contains matters of more difficulty than those of the Bill which we have just passed without discussion. It raises difficulties on four matters. The first concerns the consolidation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and parts of the 1946 and 1962 Acts. It is a good thing perhaps that the 1944 Act is consolidated in this Bill because it was repealed by the 1946 Act except in so far as it applied to new towns. Considerable difficulty in reference was caused when there was an Act which was repealed for every purpose except one and which disappeared from some of the books of Statutes. The Consolidation Measure will prove helpful in that respect.
However, I call attention to Clause 8(3) which, by consolidation, makes it


clear that special Parliamentary procedure in connection with the acquisition of land applies in all cases in which a local authority or the National Trust is concerned, or where a part of a common, open space, fuel or field garden allotment is concerned. The Joint Committee considered that this was an alteration in the law well within the description of minor alteration, but it is something of some importance and perhaps the Joint Committee might have reported on it specifically.
The third point is that this Bill must receive the Royal Assent after the Compulsory Purchase Bill, because it is here assumed that the Compulsory Purchase Bill is law and some of it is embodied in this Bill, or there is legislation by reference to it.
The fourth point is concerned with with Clause 55. This is a matter of some seriousness, because it takes us back to the issue of a Statutory Instrument being embodied in a Consolidation Measure. Clause 55 inserts into the Bill a Statutory Instrument which has been passed only this year—the Secretary of State for Wales and Minister of Land and Natural Resources Order, 1965, which came into operation on 1st April, 1965, and transferred certain powers from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the Secretary of State for Wales and certain powers from the Minister of Transport to the Secretary of State for Wales.
While it was an Order, it could be changed by another Order and there was flexibility to that extent and I should have thought that it would have been better to leave that Order to be altered, if necessary, by another Order rather than to embody it into a Statute and make it permanent, so that if it is altered by another Order, it will be difficult for the ordinary reader of the Bill to know that that has happened. If one Order repeals another, the first can be torn up and forgotten, but when an Order seeks to repeal a Section of an Act, it is not so easy for the reader of the Act to know that that has happened.
I am not sure—and I hope that the Solicitor-General will inform the House—where we find the power by Order to alter what will be Section 55. Clause 55 is a repetition of a Statutory Instrument

and unless we are reserving the power to alter it by Order, we must surely be altering and not consolidating the law. Where is the power to make what will be the Act capable of being altered by Order? I know that under the Transfer of Functions Act the functions of any Minister can be altered by Order, but that applies to that Act. When we have embodied an Order dealing with the transfer of functions in the Bill, I cannot see how we shall be able to alter it by Order and so keep that flexibility.
I trust that if the functions of, perhaps, the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales are abolished, and it was necessary to transfer them back to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, we shall not have to have a Statute to do that. We have always done it by means of a simple Order, but it looks to me that, now we have put Clause 55 in here in order to alter any of those powers, we shall need an amending Statute and not merely an amending Order.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

12.22 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), dwelt particularly upon Clause 55. What he was suggesting, as I understand it, is that again we are putting what was contained merely in an Order, into the form of a Statute. I should have liked to have notice of the point. I invite the attention of the House to the Report of the Joint Committee. The House will recall that when we were dealing with the National Insurance Act, the Joint Committee drew the attention of Parliament to the fact that certain subordinate statutory provisions—that is to say, certain Regulations—were being embodied in statutory form.
No such warning has been issued so far as this Bill is concerned. If the House cares to look at the Sixth Report of the Joint Committee, they will see that the Committee is wholly satisfied with this Bill. It does not suggest that it raised any constitutional issue whatever. I did not know that the hon. Member for Crosby was going to raise this point, but I do not want to be dogmatic about it.
I am speaking now from recollection, without reference to the Statutes, but I think he will find that under the Statute law which governs the various Departments, it will still be possible to transfer functions from one Department to another. I am speaking off the cuff and I do not want to be absolutely committed, but I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman on this point when I have had the opportunity to consider it. I again emphasise that if there had been some startling change, such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, one would certainly expect that our attention would have been drawn to it by the Joint Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: May I just call attention to the paragraph on page 19 of the Report which refers to this? I agree that it is said there quite definitely that when this is so incorporated it will be just as amendable by any subsequent transfer of functions Order as before, but nowhere does the learned Parliamentary counsel who was saying that say how that happens. I could not find it anywhere in this Consolidation Bill, nor could I find that the Transfer of Functions Act gave power to amend another Act. It certainly gave power to make Orders under the Transfer of Functions Act, but not once one has embodied the rights of a Minister in some other Act.
I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for saying that he will look into the point. I hope that there will be some opportunity, before the Bill passes through all its stages, to have the matter before the House. It is not much good writing to me, if I cannot do anything about it when the Bill has finished all its stages in the House. When the hon. and learned Gentleman has looked up the point, if he will make sure that the House has an opportunity of dealing with it in the House or in Committee, I will leave the position like that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: The rôle of the standing advisory committees to Her Majesty's Government is a vast topic to discuss in a very short time, but I am grateful for the opportunity to refer to it. I am obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for coming here to reply to what I have to say. He will probably recollect a previous occasion not so very long ago when he was able to concede a point which I put to him, and if he is equally forthcoming tonight, I shall have reason to feel very satisfied.
I do not intend in anything that I say to criticise the work of the standing advisory committees, the Governments who set them up and, above all, the people who serve on them. I am quite certain that these committees have an extremely valuable part to play in our system of government, particularly in these days when the rôle of government is growing year by year and when the technical and scientific advice which Government require is becoming increasingly important.
What I suggest is that the time has come to have a look at the rôle of these committees, the way in which they are developing, and their constitutional significance. I ask the Financial Secretary if he would not agree that the time has come when some body or other should take a look at the way in which they have developed.
My reasons for suggesting that are, first of all, the extent to which the number of committees has grown, particularly over the last 50 or 60 years. In the researches that I have been doing, I have been able to trace a standing committee back to the 17th century. I have discovered that in 1621, merchants and Privy Councillors met to discuss the decay of trade and the want of money. In the following year, a standing committee was set up to deal with these matters which eventually formed the germ of the Board of Trade. I am bound to say that I hope that all the standing committees which we have at the moment


are not going eventually to form Ministries, because it will mean that there will be no back benchers in the House on either side if they are all to be manned.
The significant development in the growth of these committees has undoubtedly taken place during the last 60 years or so. The Prime Minister, in answer to a Question of mine, on 10th February, told me that there are now 251 of these committees. On 23rd February, when I asked him for a list of them, to whom they report, whether the reports are published or not and when they were set up, I was given a list in which I found that there were 241; so there is a certain discrepancy, which is perhaps explained by some committees not being of a permanent character. Whatever the number is, in addition, there is a very large number of ad hoc and temporary committees of various kinds.
All of them have been set up during this century, well over half of them since the war. The pace has grown significantly in recent years, with an average of eight new ones in each of the last 15 years. Last year there were 12 new ones and there have been at least five new ones since the General Election. The fact that there are now a large number of these committees and that their number is growing is, therefore, one good reason for looking at them.
The second reason which I give is the function of these standing committees. It is broadly true to say that the earlier ones were largely technical, specialist committees: for example, the Osborne House Committee, set up in 1903, and the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, set up in 1922, with a fairly narrow range of specialist functions to perform. Admittedly, there were one or two notable exceptions to this rule among the earlier committees: for instance, the University Grants Committee, set up in 1919.
Studies of the list of committees show, however, that in recent years the tendency has been for the scope of these committees to widen and for them to deal increasingly with fairly major aspects of policy and to advise on a much broader front than did many of the earlier committees. The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, which was set up in 1962, and the National Ports Council, set up

in 1964, are two examples of bodies which have major functions to perform. Admittedly they are still advisory, but they are much more important than some of the earlier committees.
We have, therefore, the growth in both the numbers and the scope of these committees. This is of some constitutional significance. What are the implications on our system of government and what, in particular, are the implications concerning Parliamentary control over the Executive? These are questions which should be seriously considered.
I suppose that one of the great values of our unwritten constitution is that new machinery can grow quite naturally to meet new needs as they arise. Sometimes it tends to grow in a rather haphazard sort of way, in what might be described as the typically British way, but the very fact that these things are able to happen emphasises the need from time to time to look at these things and to satisfy ourselves that no undesirable tendencies are developing.
An analogy can be drawn with administrative tribunals and inquiries, which were looked into by the Franks Committee a few years ago with very good result. As far as I can see from my researches, however, there has been little study of standing advisory committees. They were considered to some extent by the Haldane Committee a good many years ago in 1918, but there has been very little official examination as far as I am aware. This, therefore, is another reason for an examination.
Another reason is whether we are really sure that all these committees are still necessary. Do we still need them all? Are some of them in existence but fulfilling no useful function? On the face of it, it is not easy to see what is the purpose, for example, of the Committee on the Clergy in War. Admittedly it was set up only in 1963, but this is one example when the purpose of the committee is not obvious.
I wonder whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can say how much these committees cost the taxpayer. It must be a fairly considerable sum each year. On that point, surely the more these committees grow in number the greater the possibility of duplication between the particular functions which are allocated to them?
My final point is on the question whether the reports are published or not. The list to which I referred makes it clear that slightly more than half these committees—more than 120 in fact—report confidentially to Ministers. Their reports are not generally available outside the Ministries concerned. This may be right. In some cases I am sure that it is right, where matters of national security are concerned, where trade secrets are concerned, and indeed in many cases where information would not be as readily available if the people providing that information knew that it was going to be published. I can see that there may be many of these cases where it is right and proper that the report should be confidential, but I wonder whether there are some cases where perhaps the confidential nature has been laid down to make life easier for the Ministers of the day.
To take one or two examples, is it really necessary for the Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds for England and Wales, and the similar Scottish Committee to report confidentially? Is it really necessary for the Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House of Commons to report confidentially? Again, why does the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled report confidentially to the Minister of Labour, whereas a similar committee, the Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons, which reports to the Minister of Health, has its reports published? Why is it that the English Advisory Council on Child Care reports confidentially to the Home Secretary, while the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care, which reports to the Secretary of State for Scotland, has its reports published? The two committees would appear to perform precisely similar functions, one in England and Wales and the other in Scotland, yet the reports of one are confidential, while those of the other are published.
Those are a few examples, and one other which I should like to mention is the National Ports Council. It produces an annual report, and only today it has produced a substantial report on the modernisation of our ports. But in the case of the iron ore facilities in South Wales the report was not published, and the Minister of Transport said that there

was no intention of publishing it. Although the eventual White Papers which gave the Government's conclusions stated what the recommendations of the National Ports Council were, none the less very limited information was given, and it makes things very difficult for people who have a strong interest in particular matters of that kind if the information which is provided for them is of a very limited character.
It becomes increasingly difficult for Parliament to do its job and for people to be fully informed about matters which are of vital importance to them when the Government withhold information from Parliament and from the general public. I am sure that this is necessary in some cases, but I believe, equally, that the Sunday Times, in another context, was right when it said:
There is no antiseptic like public information. There is nothing which makes so powerfully for bad Government as the ability to govern in private.
I believe that we would all accept that there is a great deal in that sentiment. Indeed, the more Governments concern themselves with an ever widening range of human activities, the more difficult it becomes to defend individual liberties. I am sure we would all agree that we have to be constantly on our guard, particularly against dangers of secret Government or bureaucratic convenience. It may be that none of these dangers exists over these standing advisory committees, but I hope that I have made out a case for a thorough examination of them.

12.41 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I am sure that all those interested in the development of our constitution and machinery of Government will be grateful to the hon. Member for raising this subject. The development of advisory bodies assisting the Government in their responsibilities is a peculiarly British institution, and an example of the kind of advantage we have through having an unwritten constitution, in that we are able to develop our machinery in this way empirically.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he accepts that they are a valuable institution, that the Government are assisted in many ways by expertise which might


otherwise be denied them. Another advantage which I see is that this gives a real opportunity for many responsible citizens to take an active part in the machinery of Government. One of the definitions of democracy which I have always liked is that of the Swiss sociologist, Wilfredo Pareto, who said:
That country is most democratic where the people participate most in the making of decisions which will affect them.
I do not know how well our system of Government would stand up to that test, but this is one respect in which we can claim that we achieve that. These committees vary enormously in their size and in the frequency of their meetings. Different people would have different views as to which are the most important. As the hon. Member pointed out, he brought to light, by Questions which he put down, a great deal of information about them, including the fact that there are over 240 permanent committees of this nature, in addition to a number of ad hoc advisory committees and commissions. They have an ancient history, dating back to the 17th century.
The formation of these committees is a growing practice, developing particularly during this century. As an example, comparing one of his Questions with an earlier one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), we find that, in the nine months from February to November, 1964, 21 new bodies of this sort were set up. They are difficult to classify and I do not think that it is useful to attempt to do so. This is because of the unique way in which they have grown up. Some are statutory and this usually occurs when they are part and parcel of some new machinery set up by an Act of Parliament. Random examples are the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the Police Council, the Central Health Services Council and the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. Many are not statutory bodies but are set up because Ministers wish such a committee to be set up and it is not a matter for which they require legislation. The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration is an example. The Advisory Council for Scientific Research and Technical Development is an important recent one.
The functions of these bodies vary. Some are purely advisory and consultative. Others, to a greater or smaller degree, have had conferred on them executive or quasi-executive functions. The Science Research Council is an example. The University Grants Committee, which began as an advisory body, has now grown into a very important body with extensive administrative powers. There are a number of cases of bodies which, on the face of it, might appear to be purely advisory but which, in practice, exercise near-executive powers.
I do not know whether any justification is needed in principle for bodies which have proved their usefulness so much in practice, but if it is sought, I could not advise the House to do better than consult the Book of Proverbs, which says:
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety".
The great growth of these bodies this century has been due to the enormous increase in the scope of Government, entering into almost every sphere of our national life—industrial, commercial, technical, scientific, social, recreational and, in many spheres, cultural.
It is obviously impossible for the Civil Service to have all the expertise in all these matters which would be required to be able to advise Ministers. Consequently, this kind of partnership has grown in an informal and unsystematic way, although it is none the worse for that. The scale of them—the fact that there are 240 or so of them—must be seen in relation to the fact that we have a population of more than 50 million people and that the membership of these bodies is under 3,500. There would be some duplication within that figure because of members who sit on more than one body.
The total cost in remuneration and expenses is about £150,000, in addition to which the secretarial services which are provided for them cost a further £280,000, making a total of £430,000. The House will agree that that is in no way a great price to pay for the vast amount of extremely useful and highly-skilled advice which is provided. For the statistically minded, it amounts to ·006 per cent. of the Supply Estimates for this year.
The fact that it is such a modest sum reflects the fact that a great deal of this


work is voluntary and reflects the voluntary tradition of public service which, I am glad to say, is still strong in this country.
The main point of principle which the hon. Gentleman raised is his anxiety about the way in which these bodies work and the possibility of that leading to some secrecy of Government. I do not share those fears and I will seek to explain why. First, I must make it clear that there is no change in the extent to which the reports of these bodies are published. Of the bodies set up in the 'forties, 33 published reports and 41 advised confidentially. In the 'fifties, 35 published reports and 37 advised confidentially. In the 'sixties, 28 published reports and 27 advised confidentially. It will be seen that this is following a general pattern.
It is obviously desirable in many cases that these reports should be made public, and unless there is some reason to the contrary it would be the inclination of all responsible Ministers to publish them, particularly where they are of a purely factual nature. There must, however, be confidentiality in some of these reports, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. Clearly, reports which deal with matters of, for example, commercial confidences cannot be made public. In some cases the bodies concerned can obtain the information which they need to accumulate and then to advise upon only if they can do so on the basis that the information is to be treated as confidential.
In many cases what the Minister is seeking from these bodies is frank advice on matters on which views may differ considerably and on which there could be considerable controversy. If one was to demand that their reports should all be made public, the result would be that they would cease to be the convenient source of frank advice which at present they are. The result then would be that the Minister concerned would have to seek that advice—because he must obtain it if he is to discharge his responsibilities properly—in other and less formal ways.
Where these bodies are set up statutorily, it is open to Parliament to determine whether or not the reports shall be made public, for that can be written into the Act and, in some cases, it is. A particular case the hon. Member referred to was the National Ports

Council, which is not in the list we published in HANSARD because primarily it does not fall within the class of an advisory body. It has such important executive functions that, although the Act provides for a specific function of advising the Minister in particular cases, this is a subsidiary function and something beyond the survey we are discussing. That was a case where if Parliament had thought that these matters should be published it could have so provided, but in practice it did not do so. The conclusions and factual findings of the Council were included in the White Paper.
On the question of publication I suggest that we need to be a little careful not to allow confusion to grow up between the rôle of Ministers on the one hand and advisory committees on the other. Whether the advice is published or not is the responsibility of Ministers and responsibility for policy rests and must be recognised as resting on Ministers. Publication of the advice of these committees may admittedly exert pressure on Ministers. To the extent that it does so people might be tempted to regard responsibility for policy as shifting to the advisory committee rather than being with the Minister. On the other hand, it could be suspected that publication of the advice might be used the other way, to exert pressure on public opinion in favour of a Minister's policy, especially if the Minister has control of the appointment of members of the committee. In these ways one might see these committees developing in a way which I do not think any of us desire.
If we made a rule that the advice of the committees must always be published, or on more occasions than now, we might find ourselves approaching these twin dangers. I would regret that, because we might find ourselves deprived of some of the freedom we now enjoy to get expert opinion by means of these committees. It is important to remember that our system of Parliamentary control entails that responsibility rests with Ministers. On virtually every decision Ministers receive advice from civil servants. That advice is confidential. So is the information in a Minister's brief. It does not detract in any way from Parliamentary control that that is not made public. The fact that we find it desirable and wise to extend that sphere of advice beyond the


sphere of civil servants to advisory bodies does not constitute any threat to our system of Parliamentary control.
While I have been very interested as a result of the hon. Member's initiative to look into this matter, I cannot feel at the moment that there is any burning issue that calls for any official or public examination of the scope and activity of these committees. If I am wrong about that, no doubt this debate will provoke the kind of public interest and controversy which might lead to such an examination. I suppose that, if one were to be made, the Estimates Committee would be the kind of body which could

do it if it was felt that the House itself should investigate it, but otherwise some outside body could be appointed.
While I welcome this debate I can only say from my experience that I have found these bodies to be enormously helpful to Ministers. I personally have benefited from the advice of bodies of this kind and I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the very great contribution which their members make to our system of government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.